YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT:
A roadmap for promoting
meaningful youth engagement in
youth employment programs
FEBRUARY 2021
Youth Employment
Funders Group
COMMISSIONED BY: IN COLLABORATION WITH:
i
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ii
User’s Guide to the Roadmap iii
Executive Summary v
Overview of Key Terms ix
Introduction 1
Research Methodology & Summary of Findings 2
Dening Meaningful Youth Engagement in Youth Employment Programs 10
A Roadmap to Meaningful Youth Engagement in Action 19
Conclusion 35
Bibliography 36
Endnotes 39
ii
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Acknowledgments
As an organization that advances equality, especially for girls and young women, we value partnerships and the impact
they can have. We are grateful to the individuals and organizations whose invaluable support and guidance ensured the
publication of this paper.
Specifically, we express our appreciation to:
— The Youth Employment Funders Group for participating in a cocreation process throughout the
development of this document and for ensuring that funders and, most especially, young people have their
voices heard.
— The Project Advisory Group and Youth Advisory Panel, whose understanding and guidance, in addition to
their mobilization support, allowed this report to be delivered with confidence. These groups comprise the
following organizations:
— Project Advisory Group: Citi Foundation; Mastercard Foundation; United States Agency for
International Development (USAID); International Labour Organization (ILO); the Graduate Institute
of International and Development Studies, Geneva; Plan International USA and the Youth Advisory Panel.
— Youth Advisory Panel: AIESEC International; United Nations Major Group for Children and Youth;
Education For Employment (EFE); Young Americas Business Trust; Young Professionals for Agricultural
Development Africa; Rural Youth Europe; Youth Lead; National Association for Friendship Centres;
Asian Development Bank Youth for Asia and Special Olympics Asia Pacific.
— The various individuals and organizations that took the time to participate and provide their insights in
the key informant interviews, focus group discussions, roundtable discussion, follow-up meetings, validation
webinars and the youth survey.
The Plan International Youth Voices for Youth Employment Project Team
Iris Caluag, John Barret Trew, Léa Moubayed-Haidar, Christian Manahan, Erika Meñez, Jose Enrique Corpus, Simon
Domingo, Ann Yang, Catalina Fischer, Kate Ezzes
The Citi Foundation works to promote economic progress and improve the lives of people in low-income communities
around the world. We invest in efforts that increase financial inclusion, catalyze job opportunities for youth and reimagine
approaches to building economically vibrant communities. The Citi Foundation’s “More than Philanthropy” approach
leverages the enormous expertise of Citi and its people to fulfill our mission and drive thought leadership and innovation.
The Youth Employment Funders Group (YEFG) is a network of over 20 multilateral organizations and international
funders working together to generate and share more and better evidence-based knowledge on what works in the field
of youth employment.
This paper is the result of the analysis carried out by Plan International and does not purport to represent the views or the official
opinion of any individual organization that participated in the research and contributed their time, experience and insights.
iii
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
User’s Guide to the
Roadmap
What is the purpose of this roadmap?
This document has been developed to guide and equip funders and stakeholders with tools and information
to support the integration of meaningful youth engagement into youth employment programming and
strategies. To do so, the paper outlines why meaningful youth engagement is important, what meaningful
youth engagement is and how it could be embedded across various stages of the program life cycle, as well
as within a funder’s strategy and culture.
Bearing in mind that funders are at different stages of their journeys, the heterogeneity of young people and
the wide range of youth employment program interventions, the roadmap’s recommendations are both
immediately actionable and aspirational.
How is the roadmap structured?
The roadmap is divided into several interconnected sections:
— An Introduction section, which frames the discussion in subsequent sections.
— The Research Methodology & Summary of Findings section, which outlines the methodology that
directed our approach and a summary of data collection findings.
— The Defining Meaningful Youth Engagement in Youth Employment Programs section, which
proposes a definition for meaningful youth engagement and presents a framework to operationalize
this concept in youth employment programs.
— A Roadmap to Meaningful Youth Engagement in Action section, which builds on the framework by
providing entry points for mainstreaming meaningful youth engagement in programs – these come in
the form of milestones and action steps per program life-cycle stage and into organizational strategies.
Throughout the paper, there are callouts, case studies and quotes. The paper also provides detailed
supplementary reading via annexes, which include a case for meaningful youth engagement in youth
employment programs, a detailed methodology, literature review findings and qualitative and quantitative
data summaries, among others. There is also an excel database available that contains the data used to
inform the research.
iv
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
How to use this roadmap?
The roadmap provides practical guidance and tools to assist a wide range of audiences to develop strategies
on how the integration of meaningful youth engagement can strengthen their organizations, program
implementation and participation. Below is a table outlining key areas of focus and take-aways for four
primary target groups: funders, implementers, private sector partners and youth.
IF YOU ARE A… FOCUS ON… YOU WILL FIND…
Funder
Dening Meaningful Youth
Engagement in Youth
Employment Programs
A description and framework to guide and operationalize meaningful
youth engagement in youth employment programs.
Mainstreaming Meaningful
Youth Engagement into the
Program Life Cycle
Step-by-step approaches and examples on how to integrate
the meaningful youth engagement pillars into the project life
cycle, beginning from project conception and design through to
implementation and impact reporting.
Meaningful Youth
Engagement into
Organizational Strategies
Recommendations for promoting meaningful youth engagement within
your institution/organization.
Implementer
Mainstreaming Meaningful
Youth Engagement into the
Program Life Cycle
Step-by-step approaches and examples on how to integrate
the meaningful youth engagement pillars into your project life
cycle, beginning from project conception and design through to
implementation and impact reporting.
Private Sector
Partner
Framework for
Operationalizing Meaningful
Youth Engagement
Information on the five pillars that underpin the integration of meaningful
youth engagement, accompanied by outcomes and high-level
indicators to measure progress.
Youth
Dening Meaningful Youth
Engagement in Youth
Employment Programs
A description and framework for meaningful youth engagement to
help you determine what to expect as a partner and participant, and
how to hold adult counterparts accountable to their commitments to
meaningful youth engagement.
v
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Executive Summary
The Untapped Potential of Meaningful Youth Engagement
S
trengthening the practice of meaningful youth engagement,
including in youth employment programs, reflects a growing
acknowledgement of young people’s role and need to be
engaged in decisions affecting their lives. While still understudied,
there is increasing awareness among funders of youth engagement’s
added value to programs, particularly in increasing a program’s
responsiveness and quality, as well as longer-term benefits resulting
from the engagement of young people in various stages of the program
life cycle.
A common understanding of “what” meaningful youth engagement is, and “how” funders can effectively
integrate meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs, remains a major knowledge gap,
however. There are only limited good practices in the existing literature that focus on the intersection of
youth engagement and youth employment. As a result, funders contend with conceptual and practical
difficulties in engaging young people in their programs and strategies.
This roadmap identifies the “who,” “why,” “when” and, most importantly, “how” when it comes to involving
young people as partners in youth employment programming. It has been developed to support funders
and practitioners in their efforts to embed youth voices and rights into their programming by considering
two key research questions:
— What are the key phases of youth engagement in the planning,
governance, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of youth
employment programs?
— What concrete steps can youth employment funders take to
strengthen their own youth engagement strategies?
To answer these questions, this roadmap considered input from a literature review, key informant
interviews, focus group discussions, a roundtable discussion, validation webinars and a youth survey.
vi
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
What is Meaningful Youth Engagement?
In reviewing the literature, recurring themes that characterize meaningful youth engagement were
identified. Insights from interviews and discussions with funders, implementers and youth further
validated these concepts. Based on our analysis of the data from these sources, meaningful youth
engagement in youth employment programs occur when:
Under enabling conditions, youth representatives actively
participate throughout the program life cycle and enter into
youth-adult partnerships that empower youth and may
contribute to positive and long-lasting labor market outcomes.
At the heart of this definition are young people (15-30 years old), in all their diversity and including the
most vulnerable. It implies that young people who are part of these programs are the driving force of youth
employment programs, albeit in varying ways, rather than merely passive beneficiaries. Moreover, the
definition applies to any youth employment program focused on improving youth employment outcomes,
regardless of program size, budget, implementation arrangements, scale or the nature of its interventions.
To operationalize the definition, a framework for meaningful youth engagement has been developed.
The figure below visualizes the framework and shows five mutually reinforcing pillars that describe the
outcomes that funders should strive to achieve in their youth employment programs:
Youth Engagement-Enabling Environment
The youth employment program provides safe, conducive and
accountable engagement conditions for youth throughout the
program life cycle.
Youth Diversity and Representation
The youth employment program selects youth participants who
represent diverse groups of youth, including the most vulnerable,
through inclusive selection processes.
Youth-Adult Partnerships
Throughout a youth employment program, a shared-value partnership
between youth and adults from funder, implementer and other
pertinent organizations underpins and leverages the eorts of all
youth involved in the program.
Youth Participation
The youth employment program ensures that the involvement of
young people is rights based, appropriate to their developmental
abilities and continuous.
Youth Empowerment
Through the youth employment program, the young participants
grow empowered, enhance project quality and youth employment
outcomes and inuence labor market developments in favor of the
program’s targeted youth.
1
2
3
4
5
vii
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
The proposed framework aims to address challenges that may hinder youth engagement. Some of these
challenges include organizational constraints, which often result in missed opportunities to engaging
youth meaningfully in youth employment programs; overcoming perceived biases and trust issues with
youth; and dealing with young people’s multiple layers of vulnerabilities and contexts.
Working with young people in shared-value partnerships throughout the life cycle of a youth employment
program, and providing them with a place where they are valued and heard, irrespective of their backgrounds,
are both critical for addressing the negative opinions of youth held by adults and the practice of tokenism
in programs. Such partnerships should also go hand-in-hand with positive discourses and behaviors; the
active participation of youth in evidence-based research and decision-making; far-reaching and diverse
youth staff recruitment strategies in programs; and the involvement of youth leaders, peer trainers and
mentors close to the youth grassroots in youth employment programs.
Guidance for Meaningful Youth Engagement in Youth
Employment Programs
This roadmap recommends priority areas for funders when embedding youth engagement into their
institutional strategies and youth employment programs. Recognizing that funders and practitioners
may be at different stages in the youth employment program life cycle, this roadmap offers step-by-
step guidance across each key program stage for achieving meaningful youth engagement.
Planning
Identify a vision for meaningful youth engagement in the program
Mobilize human resources and processes to support the program’s meaningful youth
engagement vision
Develop youth-infused program documents
Select and train adult champions to work with and coach youth
Secure appropriate resources, tools and support for the program’s youth representatives
Governance
Establish a joint adult-youth program governance board and equip it with appropriate
procurement policies
Recruit young board members by using diversity-responsive methods
Secure appropriate resources, tools and support for the work of youth board members
Strengthen the technical and management capacities of youth board members
Design
Recruit youth team members
Update and refine the program’s theory of change through youth-participatory research
Finalize and approve updated program documents and provide financial resources to
support youth-participatory activities in the program
Enhance the skills of program youth teams
viii
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Implementation
Continuously leverage core engagement-enabling resources
Initiate youth-participatory piloting and delivery of the program activities
Encourage local, youth-participatory advocacy, and elevate youth voices on youth
employment issues at the national and global levels
Monitoring
Monitor the continued relevance and effectiveness of resources and youth capacities
Practice youth-participatory adaptive programming
Document youth employment program improvements that may be linked to youth
monitoring efforts
Evaluation
Prepare and launch a youth-participatory youth employment program evaluation
Support youth-participatory dissemination of lessons learned, and recognize,
showcase and celebrate success stories
Assess the meaningful youth engagement experience of the youth employment funder/
implementer
Prepare to institutionalize and scale up meaningful youth engagement in youth
employment programs
The roadmap culminates with recommendations to help funders mainstream meaningful youth
engagement into organizational strategies.
ix
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Overview of Key Terms
Funders: Institutions that directly deliver their own funding to youth employment programs,
or that channel funding from other organizations into youth employment projects. They include
bilateral organizations, multilateral institutions, philanthropic foundations, trusts, private
businesses, charities and global funds.
Program/project life cycle: The stages of development of a program or project. They usually
include: design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The roadmap also considers two
additional stages: planning and governance.
Young people: Individuals 15-30 years old, as informed by the U.N. Youth Strategy (15-24),in
addition to the upper age limit of youth participants in this study.
1
Youth employment program: Any initiative that aims to achieve positive changes in youth
employment outcomes, regardless of scale; approaches; budget; or implementation. Supply-side
youth employment programs typically include skills-development and training interventions,
while demand-side youth employment programs typically include job-creation and business
enabling-environment interventions.
Youth empowerment: Young people achieving greater agency, personal growth and social
impact. Through participatory engagement, youth acquire core skills that will improve their own
position in the labor market. Self-empowerment through personal growth and development, in
turn, leads to increased youth capacity to (i) improve program quality and youth-responsiveness,
accelerating the program’s youth employment outcomes (community change); and (ii) co-initiate
with other influential stakeholders around necessary labor market changes to support greater
youth inclusiveness (systems change).
1
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Introduction
“N
othing about them without them” is a saying often echoed in
meaningful youth engagement approaches.
22
Though there
is growing acknowledgment of the importance of young
people’s role and their engagement in decisions affecting their lives,
there is scant formal research to support the investments of time and
resources in engaging youth; and there are many, often contradictory
models and best practices on how to meaningfully engage youth.
12
34
A theoretical barrier to strengthening this practice is the lack of consensus around
what constitutes meaningful youth engagement. Specific practical challenges
to strengthening this practice also persist. These include limitations due to
geography, access and time constraints, funding and project barriers, negative
perceptions about young people, tokenism, complexities of youth heterogeneity
and issues of fair youth representation. This suggests that working with youth
effectively and meaningfully requires efforts both at the programmatic level and
within relevant institutions.
Building on the existing knowledge of challenges and opportunities in the youth
employment space, this roadmap provides concrete guidance on how to integrate
meaningful youth engagement into six essential points of a project life cycle, with a
focus on who, how, when and why. Meaningful youth engagement in this roadmap
harnesses key Positive Youth Development concepts (assets, agency, enabling
environment, contribution) and focuses on their application within the specific
youth employment context.
The roadmap is anchored by two fundamental research questions:
— What are the key phases of youth engagement in the planning,
governance, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of youth employment programs?
— Which concrete steps can youth employment funders take to
strengthen their own youth engagement strategies?
In international reports, young
people are referred to as “agents
of change, citizens and leaders,
participants and activists,
nations’ most important assets,
the best hope and promise we have for
our collective future development and
prosperity.”
3
The adoption of Agenda 21, a
landmark global action plan for sustainable
development, puts young people front and
center in the achievement of sustainable
development, noting that youth participation
“in all relevant levels of decision-making
process” is critical not only to “their own
lives but to their future.”
4
This is echoed
in the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals, where young people
are seen to have roles in “translating the
2030 Agenda into local, national and
regional policy,” “holding governments
accountable” and in “implementation,
monitoring and review of the Agenda.”
5
Check out ANNEX A, which provides more information about the case for youth engagement drawn
from the literature.
2
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Research Methodology
& Summary of Findings
Methodology
5
Through a mixed-methods approach, this study investigated and designed a conceptual framework for
meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs. Data collection activities centered around
a literature review, which covered recent peer-reviewed journal articles; institutional documents; toolkits
and case studies from youth employment practitioners; and rigorous evaluation reports where available.
In particular, the literature review provided the conceptual foundation for the roadmap’s framework for
youth engagement and guided subsequent consultations with key stakeholders to fill in the gaps.
6
See
ANNEX B for a summary of the literature review findings.
To complement the literature review, primary data collection activities included 35 key informant
interviews; eight youth focus group discussions; a roundtable discussion with funders, implementers
and youth; validation webinars; and a global survey of 284 young people. The data collection activities for
the roadmap used a convergent mixed methods strategy appropriate for exploratory studies focused on
concepts — such as meaningful youth employment — that involve little empirical evidence.
7
Given the nature and context of the topic, qualitative data was prioritized to amplify the voices of the youth and
adult respondents, thereby allowing for a more thorough investigation of relevant themes emerging from the key
informant interviews and youth focus group discussions.
8
An inductive content analysis approach was used to
analyze the data from these activities. Such an approach helps explore theories with only sparse documentation.
The responses from the interviews and youth focus groups were collected in notes and transcripts and
analyzed using a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti). Open coding was
followed by a broad categorization of emerging code categories that guided the analysis and synthesis
of findings. The analysis and synthesis were then used to develop the roadmap’s meaningful youth
engagement framework. Quantitative data from the youth survey was analyzed separately, and was used
to complement the findings from the qualitative data (this is an appropriate and common triangulation
strategy for mixed-methods research).
9
As a core part of this paper’s development, a Youth Advisory Panel consisting of representatives of several
youth organizations and networks provided significant inputs regarding the design, preparation and
implementation of data collection and analysis.
10
Through the panel, the study was able to engage young
people from diverse backgrounds and regions of the world.
For details
on the
methodology,
research
activities and
limitations of this
paper, please
refer to
ANNEX C.
3
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Summary of Findings
This section provides a summary of findings analyzed from coded text data from 35 key informant
interviews (i.e., 15 funders, 10 implementers and 10 youth) and eight youth focus group discussions, as
well as descriptive results from a global survey of 284 youth. The triangulation of data among the three
methods informs the understanding of meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
and illustrates the concerns and suggestions from funders and implementers, as well as youth (18-30 years
old). More specifically, it outlines 1) barriers and constraints, 2) emerging responses and 3) the value of
meaningful youth engagement, identified by respondents.
A. Barriers and constraints
The analyzed data suggest three barriers and constraints that may hinder meaningful youth engagement in
youth employment programs.
Lack of organizational readiness to promote meaningful youth engagement.
A significant proportion of funders (90%), implementers (87%) and youth (80% of key informant
interviews, 63% of youth focus groups) discussed how funders and implementers’ organizational
constraints could impede even the most well-meaning intentions to engage and sustain the
involvement of young people in programs.
Organizational readiness also related to the alignment of meaningful youth engagement with the
priorities and administrative procedures of funders and implementers. Among key informant
interviews, 80% of implementers and 73% of funders noted how challenges arose when there was
a lack of alignment, and how this constrained efforts to engage young people. They expressed that
promoting meaningful youth engagement required strong donor support and investments, which
could be challenging due to limited resources, time and competing funding priorities. Implementers
further pointed out that while there were opportunities to strengthen youth engagement and move
away from tokenistic and narrow participatory practices, designing such features required financial
resources and engagement-specific expertise to successfully implement, which might not be readily
available. This challenge was further compounded by capacity constraints to reach out to young
people, especially those from rural settings or youth with disabilities.
Fewer youth key informant interviews (30%) and focus group discussions (38%) raised this issue
compared to funders and implementers. This could be due to youth’s limited experience working
within bureaucratic environments, or lack of knowledge and awareness that they could work with
adults to access needed support mechanisms. Challenges in dealing with administrative procedures
were also brought up, especially by 50% of youth and 40% of funder key informant interviews.
Funders shared how creating spaces for dialogue and shared leadership with young people was
a complicated task and opined that given the challenges in dealing with complex institutional
bureaucracies, young people might be more meaningfully engaged when project parameters have
been set.
While not asked directly about difficulties related to administrative procedures, some participants
in the youth focus groups shed light on the struggles they experienced, which directly related to
funders and implementers’ constraints. Female-only focus groups based in Eastern Europe and
1
4
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
East and West Africa shared how not having the resources to access youth engagement opportunities made it
difficult for them to decide and actively participate in programs.
Youth survey responses provided additional insight, and further suggest the relevance of aligning meaningful
youth engagement with funders’ and implementers’ priorities and administrative procedures. When asked about
the meaningful youth engagement-enabling support that youth needed, the responses included examples that
entailed resources from funders and implementers. The responses included: capacity-building programs (88%);
networking opportunities (77%); research and data (70%); equipment and other resources, such as laptops and
mobile phones (68%); and financial compensation (63%).
These findings indicate the importance of organizational readiness to engage in meaningful youth engagement.
While funders and implementers may have the willingness to engage youth in intergenerational partnerships
within youth employment programs, constraints related to resources, priorities and capacities need attention.
Perceived biases and issues of trust.
Funders, implementers and youth raised the issue of perceived biases against youth engagement and how this led
to difficulties in working with adult partners.
Specifically, 50% of youth focus groups expressed how biases against youth partners sometimes led to conflict,
misunderstandings and a general feeling that their contributions were not valued. Male and female focus group
discussions equally brought this up, but female focus groups also flagged issues of adults not trusting young
women and difficulties overcoming gender biases. The issues of prejudice, trust and gender bias were brought
up by regional focus groups, specifically the two cross-regional focus groups, as well as Eastern Europe and Latin
America.
Youth were not alone in acknowledging such barriers. In particular, 60% of funders and 47% of implementers
raised that biases against youth were a challenge to intergenerational partnerships. Implementers focused on
the need for adults to manage biases that created difficulties in intergenerational relationships, while funders
highlighted that trusting youth and treating them as partners facilitates positive intergenerational relationships.
These findings suggest that adults’ initial biases against youth partners could be dispelled through continued
dialogue and collaboration with youth, which demonstrate recognition of young people’s contributions and
signify that they are being perceived as co-partners.
Socioeconomic, safety and security barriers to access engagement opportunities.
Nearly all youth key informants (90%) acknowledged that young people presented multiple layers of
vulnerabilities, which include various forms of social, economic, political and cultural factors that influence their
experiences. Funders (67%) and implementers (70%) largely supported this assertion. Implementers and funders
both revealed difficulties in addressing the vulnerabilities faced by vulnerable girls and young women, youth with
disabilities and other youth groups.
Youth key informant interviews also raised how these multiple layers presented challenges to engagement as well
as to youth aspirations on jobs and livelihoods. This was echoed by 50% of youth focus groups. Focus groups with
youth with disabilities shared how factors, ranging from accessibility of program venues, communication with
both adults and youth and taking on roles within teams, could impede participation. All the female youth focus
2
3
5
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
groups mentioned that individual participation was sometimes constrained due to socio-cultural
considerations, such as females interacting with male youth, concern for their safety and taking
time away from familial obligations. Similarly, most youth survey respondents (85%) considered
personal safety an important consideration when deciding whether to join a program or not.
These findings suggest that young people presented multiple layers of vulnerabilities and contexts,
and as such, meaningful youth engagement interventions need to consider how differentiated
experiences can impact the access and needs of youth involved.
B. Emerging Responses
Funders, implementers and youth were asked to discuss ways to better integrate young people’s voices and
increase their meaningful engagement as active actors in youth employment programs. Seven thematic
recommendations were identified from the analysis and comparison of the data from the interviews, focus
groups and survey.
Guide youth-adult partnerships with collaboration and co-creation principles.
Co-leadership and co-decision-making in intergenerational partnerships were mostly discussed by
youth (100% of youth key informant interviews and youth focus group discussions), followed by
funders (90%) and implementers (80%) in key informant interviews.
Funder and implementer informants affirmed that intergenerational partnerships served as
an important dimension to enable more meaningful youth engagement. Further, the majority
of implementers noted that mentoring and coaching young people could facilitate positive
intergenerational relationships, while funders discussed how it was crucial to understand the
passion and aspirations of young people.
Youth focus group participants, especially those in female focus groups, felt they should be viewed
as partners who were valued and heard.
11
Focus group members in Eastern Europe and Latin
America discussed this at length, focusing on the importance of intergenerational communication
and understanding to make youth’s engagement more meaningful.
Youth survey findings concurred, with a majority of responses (88%) agreeing that youth
employment programs should provide opportunities for young people to work with adults as
partners. In particular, the youth survey pointed to a level of success in overcoming barriers to
intergenerational partnerships. Responses indicated there was mutual trust (81%), reciprocity
(76%) and a level of shared understanding (83%) between youth and adult partners in the programs
that respondents had participated in before. Overall, 69% of survey responses agreed that youth
were able to convince adult decision-makers of the importance of their role and contributions in
addressing employment issues.
Suggestions gleaned on fostering co-creative and collaborative youth-adult partnerships from the
funder and implementer key informant interviews emphasized viewing youth as program partners
and equals; recognizing and supporting youth to demonstrate their skills, values, contributions
1
6
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
and assets; and avoiding instances when program staff do not listen to or understand youth. Youth
focus groups and key informant interviews had similar recommendations, and added providing
mentorship, as well as highlighting the importance of communication and understanding.
Engage youth continuously throughout the program.
Nearly all funders, implementers and youth discussed the importance of engaging young people
throughout the youth employment program life cycle. This recommendation was brought up by
funders (93%), implementers (90%) and youth (90% of youth key informant interviews, 88% youth
focus group discussions). The youth survey concurred, with respondents agreeing that young people
should be involved in various program stages: planning (86%), design (85%), implementation
(87%), monitoring and evaluation (85%) and decision-making or governance (82%).
Among funders and implementers, there was a general perception that the earlier youth
engagement happened in a program lifecycle, the higher its impact on program quality. Slightly
more implementers (60% compared to 53% of funders) discussed the need to consult young people
at the onset of the program. This was complemented by 60% of funders who raised the need to
involve youth in decision-making processes.
Youth shared different perspectives, with 70% of youth key informant interviews discussing the
importance of expanding the roles and responsibilities of youth partners. Similarly, half of youth
focus groups supported this notion. The focus group for Middle East and North Africa regions also
gave recommendations for engaging young people in different (and even beyond) the program
stages, such as involving youth as program staff in the preparatory and governance stages, and as
trainers and mentors post-program for future participants.
Enable youth views to influence program direction.
Funders, implementers and youth discussed the importance of ensuring that intergenerational
partnerships influence the youth employment program’s strategy. This was discussed by most
implementers (90%) and funders (87%), as well as by youth (75% youth focus groups, 70% youth key
informant interviews). Similarly, youth survey respondents (87%) believe that youth employment
programs should allow for young people’s participation in decision-making within the organization,
especially those that affect them.
The emphasis on young people’s influence on the program direction highlights the importance of
youth-adult partnerships that act on youth inputs and avoid tokenistic mechanisms – issues that
more implementers and funders brought up compared to youth. More than half of implementers
(60%) and funders (52%) considered it important to act on youth inputs compared to youth, where
only 50% of focus groups and none of the youth key informant interviews discussed it at all. Nearly
half of the key interviews with funders (46%) and implementers (44%) also noted that engaging
youth should not be tokenistic. In contrast, only 20% of youth key informant interviews and only
one youth focus group discussion brought up tokenism when answering questions related to youth-
adult partnerships.
This finding suggests either young people had limited experience in intergenerational partnerships
within youth employment programs, especially in stages that involved co-leadership and co-
2
3
7
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
decision-making, or that other issues were considered to be more important to those who were
interviewed and engaged in focus group discussions.
Expand and support roles for youth to strengthen youth capacities.
Youth taking roles that contribute to the program and that align with the developmental abilities
of young people was raised by all stakeholders. This was unanimously brought up in 100% of youth
key informant interviews and youth focus group discussions and nearly all implementers (90%) and
funders (80%). Although funders and implementers brought up the possibility of youth becoming
program staff members, implementers provided more concrete examples of appropriate roles and
responsibilities for youth partners including youth-researchers, trainers and role models to other
youth.
Ensuring these expanded roles align with developmental capabilities of youth was flagged
as important by youth focus group participants with disabilities. The group shared how they
sometimes found that tasks were too difficult for them to deliver and highlighted why opportunities
to strengthen youth capacity to contribute is valuable. The youth survey supports these findings.
Among respondents with prior youth employment program experience, 80% of young people said
they received sufficient support from adults to help them fulfill their responsibilities in the program.
Examples of this support included capacity building (82%), networking opportunities (62%) and
access to research and data to strengthen youth initiatives (53%).
The issue of strengthening capacities of young people to fulfill these roles was also brought up by
implementers (50%) and funders (40%) yet received less attention from youth focus groups (12.5%)
and youth key informant interviews (10%). This could be due to youth focus group participants and
interview informants’ limited exposure to a wider range of program roles and the corresponding
capacities and responsibilities that these entailed.
Foster a youth engagement-enabling environment.
All implementers and youth from interviews and focus groups, and nearly all funders (93%), talked
about how sustaining youth engagement required broader institutional support from funders. Both
funders and implementers discussed the importance of giving youth an opportunity to share their
voices. In addition, specific suggestions from funders included implementing youth engagement
specific capacity-building programs and mobilizing resources to enable youth partners’ engagement.
Implementers on the other hand suggested the creation of youth councils or advisory boards to
guide the program as well as mobilizing context-specific resources for disadvantaged youth.
Youth provided alternative suggestions. Focus groups with youth with disabilities notably raised
the need for a mentor or coach, disability-friendly working methods and context-specific capacity
building. Furthermore, all female youth focus groups (100%) raised that the environment must be
“youth-friendly” and include real opportunities to contribute, resources (e.g., allowance) and space
to make mistakes.
4
5
8
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Create opportunities for youth to provide program feedback.
Funders (73%), implementers (80%) and youth (80% of youth key informant interviews, 63% of
youth focus groups), discussed how regular feedback loops presented critical opportunities for
young people to constructively and continuously influence (through testing and iterating) the
youth employment program’s strategy. In particular, female youth focus groups (67%) discussed the
importance of concrete feedback and accountability mechanisms as well the transparent reporting
of results. A significant amount of youth survey respondents (89%) believed that this would lead to
an improvement in the quality of youth employment programs.
Selection of diverse representative youth (individuals or group) for the program matters.
The importance of selecting representative youth to participate in intergenerational partnerships
was brought up by all funder and implementer informants, and 70% of youth key informants. While
the dangers of selecting non-diverse representatives was not directly asked in the interviews, most
implementers (70%) actually raised how the selection of non-representative youth could lead to
perceived legitimacy and trust issues, as well as heightened competition among youth involved.
Implementers also saw representation as a key step in ensuring that program governance structures
and activities were inclusive and that failing to do so could lead to program engagement by elitist
youth to the detriment of more disadvantaged young people. Fewer funders (33%) and youth (10%)
informants brought this up in their interviews.
All youth focus groups concurred with key
informant interviews on the importance
of representative youth. Focus groups,
particularly groups with young people
with disabilities and youth from Asia
Pacific, also raised the issue of providing
additional support mechanisms tailored
to their contexts and needs. Some focus
group participants, particularly in East
and West Africa, spoke of their negative
experiences with representatives who
did not reflect their needs, contexts
and backgrounds, and emphasized the
importance of interacting with program-
targeted youth.
Youth survey findings also support this
point: 86% of the respondents agreed
that youth employment programs should
respond to the community’s local realities
and 82% said that youth participating
in programs should come from diverse
backgrounds.
6
7
Eight focus group discussions were conducted between July and
August 2020 across major geographic regions in the world. These
discussions were held with youth participants from North America
and Western Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, East and
West Africa, and Asia Pacific.
All youth focus groups, except for East and West Africa,
mostly discussed the challenge of dealing with young people’s
multiple layers of vulnerability. Vulnerability was understood to
refer to a wide range of factors, which notably includes social,
economic, political and cultural factors that shape young people’s
environment, opportunities and roles in their contexts. In the East
and West Africa focus group, the need to be given space to
contribute, lack of resources to enable engagement and the need
to deal with young people’s multiple layers of vulnerability were
raised the most.
In terms of emerging responses to promoting meaningful youth
engagement, the Asia Pacific, Middle East and North Africa
focus groups discussed gaining broad organizational support.
The Latin America and Eastern Europe groups focused more
on youth-adult partnerships that were guided by principles of
collaboration and co-creation. The East and West Africa focus
group emphasized selecting representative youth.
9
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
C. Value of meaningful youth engagement
Funders, implementers and youth in the research recognized that meaningful youth engagement
contributes to improved labor market outcomes for young people. Youth engagement opportunities were
seen as important, particularly by 80% of both funders and implementers in key informant interviews, to
help young people transition seamlessly into the World of Work (WoW), especially through the acquisition
of soft skills.
12
This finding was echoed by all youth key informant interviews and youth focus groups.
At the same time, youth focus groups (88%) and key interviews with youth (80%) included discussion of how
young people needed to be given the space to grow and develop. Fewer funders (27%) and implementers
(40%) brought this up in their key interviews, and instead noted how engaged youth could access post-
program economic opportunities as a result of their involvement in the program. Some examples of this
include being engaged as alumni to speak to new program trainees, serving as volunteers at different stages
of new programs, or being employed as program staff.
Youth survey respondents with previous youth employment program experience noted they had acquired
soft skills (90%), confidence (85%), networks (82%), knowledge about youth rights (80%), job-relevant
skills (80%) and entrepreneurial skills (73%).
Youth engagement was also seen to have a multiplier effect, whereby youth engagement in initial programs
and interventions could translate to economic and engagement opportunities beyond the program. This
was discussed mostly by youth and implementer key informant interviews (90%), followed by youth focus
groups (88%) and funder key informant interviews (87%). Regional focus groups – especially youth focus
groups for the Middle East and North Africa – elaborated how youth could become change agents in their
communities and advocates for the program, as well as share knowledge with practitioners as a result of
their engagement in programs.
Interviews with funders (87%), implementers (90%) and youth (90%), as well as youth focus group
discussions (87.5%), expressed that successful youth engagement increased the demand for youth
inputs and resources beyond the labor market context. For example, youth may take on official roles with
governments, or with funder and implementer organizations to advise, replicate or lead follow-up youth
employment initiatives. This aspect was particularly important for focus group participants from Latin
America who expressed the importance of some form of post-program follow-through that continued
to contribute to their communities. Similarly, 84% of youth survey responses believed that young people
should continue engaging in youth employment activities after their programs ended.
The findings above draw mostly from the proportion of unique data occurrences found in 13 themes of data,
which were identified from 102 code categories. ANNEX D presents the 13 themes vis-a-vis the total and unique
occurrences of the data in the focus group discussions and key informant interviews with funders, implementers and
youth. The annex also presents a summary of the survey findings and how these relate to the same themes.
10
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Defining Meaningful Youth
Engagement in Youth
Employment Programs
T
o support the consistent understanding and application
of youth engagement, the paper proposes a definition of
meaningful youth engagement that builds on key themes
from the literature review and that has been further validated by
insights from key informant interviews and discussions with funders,
implementers and young people to inform the roadmap.
Our analysis shows that meaningful youth engagement exhibits the concepts of diversity and representation,
participation, youth-adult partnerships and multifaceted empowerment, and is supported by the presence
of enabling conditions. Therefore, in this roadmap, the engagement of young people is meaningful when:
Under enabling conditions, youth representatives actively
participate throughout the program life cycle and enter
into youth-adult partnerships that empower youth and
may contribute to positive and long-lasting labor market
outcomes.
The definition focuses on young people aged 15-30 years from all backgrounds, who are involved in any type of
youth employment program, whether it is a large- or small-scale initiative, or a supply-side or demand-driven
intervention.
13
11
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
A Framework for Operationalizing Meaningful Youth
Engagement
The definition features five interconnected pillars that guide the integration of meaningful youth
engagement into employment programs. Accompanying each pillar are illustrative results and sample
indicators to assist in program monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Youth Engagement-Enabling Environment
The youth employment program provides safe, conducive and
accountable engagement conditions for youth throughout the
program life cycle.
Youth Diversity and Representation
The youth employment program selects youth participants who
represent diverse groups of youth, including the most vulnerable,
through inclusive selection processes.
Youth-Adult Partnerships
Throughout a youth employment program, a shared-value partnership
between youth and adults from funder, implementer and other
pertinent organizations underpins and leverages the eorts of all
youth involved in the program.
Youth Participation
The youth employment program ensures that the involvement of
young people is rights based, appropriate to their developmental
abilities and continuous.
Youth Empowerment
Through the youth employment program, the young participants
grow empowered, enhance project quality and youth employment
outcomes and inuence labor market developments in favor of the
program’s targeted youth.
1
2
3
4
5
12
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Fair, inclusive and context-specific youth representation is essential for a meaningful engagement
process and for overall program cohesion. This kind of representation promotes unity among all young
people involved in the programs. The selection of youth representatives was considered by all youth focus
groups, as well as funder and implementer respondents in key informant interviews, to be important.
KEY CRITERIA
— Fairness: The youth employment program structures and roles (e.g., oversight, management, delivery)
are equitably distributed across youth participants.
— Inclusion: The complex heterogeneity of the program youth population target (e.g., gender, age,
dis/ability, ethnicity) is reflected in the pool of youth engaging in the youth employment program.
— Context-specificity: The specific circumstances of the program youth population target (e.g.,
education, employment, income, location, refugee or migration status) are reflected in the pool of youth
driving the youth employment program.
SAMPLE HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS
— Proportion of youth among the participants in the youth employment program, disaggregated by age and
gender, who are: young women, young people with disabilities, youth who identify as ethnic minority or
migrant, openly LGBTQIA+, youth from rural/remote areas, low-income youth, young people who have
a secondary/tertiary education, youth who have received formal or nonformal education or training, and
youth who are not students in academic or training programs or who are unemployed
— Percentage of youth recruited through diverse methods as defined by the program
— Percentage of participants in youth employment programs (including intended beneficiaries) who
report that the selection of youth for the program reflected the program’s youth-related target(s)
OUTCOME
The youth employment program selects youth participants who represent diverse groups of youth, including
the most vulnerable, through inclusive selection processes.
13
Youth Diversity and RepresentationYouth Diversity and Representation
1
“Working with
a peer is more
comfortable
because a
peer will have
more tolerance
towards me
making mistakes.”
YOUNG
IMMIGRANT
WOMAN, NORTH
AMERICA
Connected Education, a joint project of Microsoft Philanthropies and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), is an example of a program that engages the intended
youth as key members of the program team. Focusing on enhancing digital literacy in the
Kakuma refugee camp, in Kenya, the project follows a youth peer-training approach that was
designed by both organizations in close collaboration with one of the most marginalized youth
communities: the young refugees themselves. Under this program, 25,000 young refugees, half
of them young women, are being trained in digital skills through the 40 trainers who received
advanced courses to be able to train other youth, in turn. It is expected that these young
“master trainers” will have a clear impact on the outcomes of the project, which is even more
critical today given the emergence and developments of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
CASE STUDY NO. 1:
Youth Training
of Trainers
for Increased
Digital Inclusion
Among Young
Refugees in
Kenya
13
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Environments matter – especially in enabling various forms of engagement to emerge. The literature,
particularly the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2018) and the World Health Organization
(WHO, 2018), shares how these environments should be safe, accountable and supported by certain
factors, such as youth-safeguarding policies and mechanisms; gender- and disability-responsive safe spaces;
youth-friendly working methods; sustained, youth-centered resources; and a credible audience (see
ANNEX B for more details).
14
The findings from key informant interviews, youth focus groups and youth survey in relation to the
need for broad organizational/institutional support suggest the importance of conducive enviroments
for meaningful youth engagement. When discussing challenges related to sustaining meaningful youth
engagement, 50% of youth and 40% of funder respondents highlighted constraints brought by dealing
with administrative procedures.
KEY CRITERIA
— Safe: Program engagement conditions are underpinned by a basic commitment to ensuring that young
people engaging in the program are protected and are active in promoting their own safety, and that the
program reflects their best interests.
— Conducive: The program environment provides youth with program gender- and disability-responsive
safe spaces; youth-friendly working methods; and sustained, youth-centered resources.
— Accountable: The program environment gives young people engaging in the program a credible
audience that ensures their voices are heard without judgement and that provides feedback on how
their views are leveraged in the program.
SAMPLE HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS
— Existence of youth-safeguarding policies and accountability mechanisms within the program
— Number of inclusive WoW-relevant safe spaces for the youth program participants, both virtual and physical (e.g.,
after-school programs, weekend and evening youth training programs; schools, remedial-education and technical
and vocational education and training (TVET) centers; universities and alumni associations; savings groups;
business incubators; youth unions; job centers)
— Percentage of youth who report that the methods used in the youth employment intervention were inclusive and
youth friendly
— Budget allocation for continued age-, gender- and disability-responsive engagement capacity building for youth
participants
— Budget allocation for the financial remuneration of, or financial assistance to, the program’s youth participants in
the form of salaries, compensation and/or stipends (depending on their roles)
— Percentage of youth who report that their concerns were heard and acted on by influential labor market stakeholders,
such as labor ministry officials, parliamentary youth committee members, representatives of employer and worker
associations and leaders of educational or financial institutions
OUTCOME
The youth employment program provides safe, conducive and accountable engagement conditions for youth throughout
the program life cycle.
Youth Diversity and RepresentationYouth Engagement-Enabling Environment
2
“They [funders]
have to make
it a friendly
environment
for youth, they
have to start
creating training
opportunities
for youth and
there should
also be extra
opportunities
that can make
[youth] grow
outside their
job or the
organization they
are working with.”
YOUNG WOMAN,
EASTERN
AFRICA
14
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
The literature, specifically Zeldin, Christens and Powers (2012), argues that meaningful youth engagement
should be anchored in genuine, shared-value partnerships between young people and adults. These, in
turn, should be based on shared values and mutual respect. In this roadmap, shared-value partnerships
between youth and adults hinge upon concepts of shared value creation, equal value, shared work and
common norms as critical.
15
In the research, all youth key informant interviews and youth focus groups
underscored the importance of co-leadership and co-decision-making in promoting meaningful youth-
adult partnerships. Implementer (90%) and funder (80%) key informant interviews concurred. In youth
focus groups, participants shared the struggles to be seen as valuable partners in decision-making and
about engagements that are perceived as tokenistic or ad hoc. Furthermore, 85% of youth survey responses
agreed that trust and reciprocity were critical aspects of their partnerships with adults.
KEY CRITERIA
— Shared value creation: Intergenerational partnerships between adults and youth maximize value
creation and provide net benefits for both parties, such as increased political and social capital; the
authority to set new norms and standards; greater innovation, scalability and sustainability potential;
strengthened capacity to delivery desired youth employment outcomes; and stronger collaboration.
16
— Equality: Collaboration between young people and adults result in a transfer of expertise to the
youth that “triggers complementarity between old and new generations.”
17
At the same time, young
people are seen as “valued stakeholders” and “valued contributors” and are engaged for what they can
“uniquely provide” and as “resources to be developed.”
18
— Joint work: This refers to having common objectives, shared decision-making authority, joint
ownership, joint responsibility for outcomes, co-learning and a two-way learning mindset – as opposed
to tokenistic and prescriptive relationships.
19
“It is under the[se] conditions of shared work ... that
youth become motivated to be involved.”
20
— Common norms: Authentic partnerships between adults and young people rely on trust, acceptance,
respect, mutuality and reciprocity.
21
Under this normative joint framework, the right to disagree with
one another – and to act independently from others when values do not align – is strongly reaffirmed
in a true partnership of equals.
22
Restless Development encourages young people to share their experiences in
programs via a “mobile journalist” approach, through which youth can capture and
openly communicate their own content and findings. Similarly, Plan International has
worked with corporate partners, including the Thomson Reuters Foundation and
Canon, to develop a “youth report” model, which seeks to empower young women
and men to advocate on issues of their choosing using media methods that are
familiar and accessible. Both initiatives show how implementers have helped young
people to communicate to and be heard by labor market stakeholders.
CASE STUDY NO. 2:
Restless
Development’s and
Plan International’s
Ways Toward Youth
Participatory Creative
Feedback Mechanisms
Youth Diversity and RepresentationYouth-Adult Partnerships
3
15
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
SAMPLE HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS
— Establishment of a shared decision-making structure for the program with representatives of the
young program participants and program funders (e.g., joint program executive board)
— Percentage of young people from the decision-making structure who report feeling valued by the adult
board members for what they have brought to the program (disaggregated at least by age, gender and
[dis]ability)
— Proportion of youth who report sharing work, authority and ownership with adult board members
throughout the youth employment intervention (disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]
ability); or the proportion of youth who report creating a mutual work and learning agenda with the
adult board members
— Proportion of young people and adults who report mutual feelings of trust throughout their program
partnership (disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]ability for youth)
— Proportion of funder organizations that believe they had a greater strategic impact on youth
employment or improved their ability to deliver on their youth employment mandate due to their joint
work with youth program leaders
— Proportion of young people in the program who believe they gained a net benefit from the partnership
between adult and youth leaders at each project stage (e.g., collective learning and capability;
networking, connecting and catalyzing action; weight of action; scale; social/political capital; the
authority to create new norms/standards for youth employment)
OUTCOME
Throughout a youth employment program, a shared-value partnership between youth and adults from
funder, implementer and other pertinent organizations underpins and leverages the efforts of all youth
involved in the program.
16
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
UNICEF (2018), in particular, acknowledges the “urgent need to move away from [participatory]
approaches that merely consult young people as beneficiaries, towards engagement approaches that
recognize young people are actors.”
23
During the research, more than half of implementers (60%) and
funders (53%) acknowledged the need to consult young people at the onset of the program. They also
brought up the importance of involving youth in decision-making processes. Moreover, nearly all funders
(93%), implementers (90%) and youth (90% of youth key informant interviews, 88% of youth focus group
discussions) discussed the significance of engaging youth throughout the program life cycle. To some
funders and implementers, earlier engagement could potentially impact program quality.
At the same time, 70% of youth key informants felt it was necessary to expand the roles that young people
played in such programs. This was echoed by youth survey respondents, who believed youth should
be involved in the following program stages: planning (86%), design (85%), implementation (87%),
monitoring and evaluation (85%) and decision-making or governance (82%). The research participants
also emphasized how youth roles in the program should align with the developmental abilities of the young
people involved. This was discussed by all youth key informant interviews and focus groups, as well as
nearly all implementers (90%) and funders (80%).
KEY CRITERIA
— Rights-based: Rights-based approaches to development put a particularly strong emphasis on the
right of citizens, including young people, to participate as a prerequisite for claiming other rights,
including social and economic rights.
24
— Age/developmentally appropriate: Participation also benefits from being age-appropriate and
adapted to the changing developmental needs of youth (or level of maturity and independence).
25
— Continuous: Genuine youth participation spans the full spectrum of a particular project interventions,
which “cover all aspects of the decision” and “all stages of developing, implementing, monitoring
and evaluating programs, policies and investment of resources – from start to finish.”
26
Therefore,
to support the objective of meaningful engagement, youth participation should be continuous
throughout the program lifetime.
27
SAMPLE HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS
— Percentage of young people in the youth employment program who report being able to participate
throughout the program life cycle at a level suitable to their age, developmental needs, level of maturity
and independence
28
— Percentage of young people from the youth employment program who report playing an active role in
the program (i) continuously, i.e., across the full project life cycle, involving design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation (disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]ability); or (ii) in a minimum
of three project life-cycle stages (disaggregated by age, gender and [dis]ability)
— Number of young people in the program who report progressively raising their level of initiative
or gradually engaging in more processes throughout the youth employment program life cycle
(disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]ability)
Youth Diversity and RepresentationYouth Participation
4
“Young people
are usually
receiving what
others prepared…
It is mainly
adults who are
designing the
whole process
and then
implementing
and evaluating
it... If [programs]
were created
in a way that
benets from
young people’s
[knowledge],
programs [would]
be [shaped] to
attract young
people.”
YOUNG WOMAN
IN A RURAL
SETTING,
EASTERN
EUROPE
17
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
OUTCOME
The youth employment program ensures that the involvement of young people is rights based,
appropriate to their developmental abilities, and continuous.
2930
Co-created in 2017 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Citi Foundation,
Youth Co:Lab aims to establish a common agenda for countries in the Asia-Pacific region to empower
and invest in youth, so that they can accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) through leadership, social innovation and entrepreneurship. By developing 21st century
skills, catalyzing and sustaining youth-led startups and social enterprises, Youth Co:Lab is positioning
young people front and center in order to solve the region’s most pressing challenges. Over the last
three years, Youth Co:Lab has been implemented in 25 countries and territories across Asia-Pacific.
The national dialogues, regional summits and social innovation challenges have reached over 75,000
participants. The initiative has benefitted over 7,100 young social entrepreneurs and helped to launch
or improve over 1,000 youth-led social enterprises. Youth Co:Lab has also established partnerships
with over 180 key ecosystem players through its Youth Empowerment Alliance.
CASE STUDY NO. 3:
Youth Co:Lab
Youth Diversity and RepresentationYouth Empowerment
5
If participation can be purely informative at the start of a project, it could also move on to becoming consultative,
collaborative and empowering.
29
The main difference among the degrees of participation is in the way participation
happens – whether the underlying participation approaches are top-down (e.g., media-based communication with
policymakers) or bottom-up (e.g., youth-participatory consultations and other youth-initiated action).
30
Meaningful youth engagement is considered to be deeply “connected to actual opportunities to exert
power today.”
31
Most key informant interviews (90% implementers, 90% youth, 87% funders) revealed that
youth contributions are relevant beyond the WoW as well, pointing to associations with multidimensional
empowerment, where young people are empowered and become agents of empowerment for others
beyond the program life cycle.
KEY CRITERIA
— Personal empowerment: Transformational outcomes at the individual level, where young people
have a chance to “practice who they want to be.”
32
In practice, when youth plan for the world they want
to participate in, they become motivated to acquire the information and learning, skills, tools and
networks they will need to start moving the needle.
— Community-level impact: This refers to “youth feel[ing] engaged when they are connected and/or
are contributing to something larger than themselves.”
33
Specifically, meaningfully engaged young
people enable the creation of better informed, increasingly youth-responsive initiatives and ideas that
reflect the diversity and priorities of young people.
34
This, in turn, can lead to community changes in
areas that directly affect their lives.
35
— System-level influencing: As a longer-term, more aspirational subdimension, this pertains to the
responses of youth to norms and systemic barriers, structures and practices (including invisible ones)
18
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
that affect their position in society.
36
Entrenched barriers can leave youth “fighting for more responsibility
and power.”
37
Through their engagement, young people challenge the injustices caused by exclusion,
violation of rights, social marginalization and lack of access to social capital. Thus, meaningful youth
engagement can be synonymous with a shift in power dynamics.
38
SAMPLE HIGH-LEVEL INDICATORS
— Percentage of young people in the program who report feelings of increased agency and/or personal growth
with regard to the WoW, as a result of their pursuit of the objectives of the youth employment program
(disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]ability)
— Number of young people in the youth employment program who have completed life/soft/core work skills
trainings in the context of youth engagement work, and the percentage of those who indicate that the trainings
critically improved their position in the WoW (e.g., school-to-work transition, career advancement) within six
months of program completion/exit (disaggregated by age, gender, [dis]ability and possibly by type of training)
— Percentage of young people in the program who report feeling that they improved the quality and youth
responsiveness/relevance of the youth employment program (disaggregated at least by age, gender and [dis]
ability)
— Percentage of young people from the program who report positively influencing the institutional, policy and
regulatory aspects of the labor market in ways that increase youth inclusiveness (disaggregated at least by
age, gender and [dis]ability)
— Existence of a demonstrated commitment and/or strategy among influential labor market stakeholders to
renegotiate/improve the WoW position of young program participants, and to more effectively include them
or mainstream them into their and other relevant labor market structures (e.g., declaration of intent, draft
reforms)
— Establishment of a representative, accredited, inclusive and properly resourced program to create an
alumni network for peer mentoring and for training new youth recruits in meaningful youth engagement in
subsequent youth employment programs
OUTCOME
Through the youth employment program, the young participants grow empowered, enhance project quality and
youth employment outcomes and influence labor market developments in favor of the program’s targeted youth.
The Youth Inspiring Youth in Agriculture initiative (YIYA) in Uganda supported by the U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is an example of how self-empowerment can be
supported by the implementing organization, and by young people. The project helped
identify innovative youth “agripreneur” champions. Youth champions received cash support,
training and coaching to help them understand and navigate agribusiness services.
They started sharing their knowledge and experience with other young people, providing
capacity building and mentorship. Over time, youth champions significantly grew their own
businesses and youth employee base, and acquired the confidence and power to act as
role models for others. Fellow community youth followed their example, setting-up their own
agribusinesses and adopting innovative practices pioneered by the youth champions, such
as aquaculture. This successful experience was scaled up with a second edition launched in
2020, and is being replicated in other countries like Kenya.
CASE STUDY NO. 4:
Youth Inspiring
Youth in
Agriculture
Initiative for
Developing
Innovative,
Youthful
“Agripreneurs”
19
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
A Roadmap to
Meaningful Youth
Engagement in Action
T
his section provides a step-by-step guide to the key phases of
youth employment programs. Recognizing that funders will be
at different points along their meaningful youth engagement
journeys, the roadmap includes general guidance and maps out
milestones designed to help funders and implementers embed
meaningful youth engagement into the various stages of their programs.
Planning Phase
This roadmap considers all the pillars to be equally important and mutually reinforcing, and maintains that
meaningful youth engagement depends on the achievement of all the pillars. However, we recognize that funders
and implementers are characterized by different capacities, arrangements and program contexts. To operationalize
meaningful youth engagement, funders and implementers may have to tailor their approaches and determine what
can be realistically be achieved within each pillar in the life-cycle stages.
“I think youth employment programs can be created by others, of course. But young
people themselves must always be involved in this creative space – not only as
beneciaries, [not only as] opportunity-[seekers], but as co-workers. I think this is
the way to make it possible and keep both sides balanced.”
– YOUNG WOMAN LEADER, LATIN AMERICA
20
PLAN INTERNATIONAL
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
PLANNING
The foundations of a youth engagement-
enabling environment and adult-youth
partnerships in the program are laid out. Youth
consultations are initiated to inform program
conceptualization.
1
GOVERNANCE
Flexible and youth-friendly support, systems
and resources are put in place.
2
IMPLEMENTATION
Youth participation incrementally evolves.
4
EVALUATION
Youth-participatory evaluation is conducted.
Meaningful youth engagement experiences
are documented and used in the preparation
of the next youth employment programs.
6
DESIGN
Youth representatives are
empowered to work with adults to
rene program design.
3
MONITORING
Youth-participatory monitoring processes
are supported. Notable improvements in
youth employment programs are captured and
used to adjust pr
ogram strategy.
5
Mainstreaming Meaningful Youth Engagement into the Program Life Cycle
21
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
The planning phase sets the tone and direction for meaningful youth engagement in a youth employment
program.
The following specific action steps are recommended for the planning phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. A vision for meaningful
youth engagement in the
program is identied.
1.1. Develop a map of formal and informal youth-participatory organizations and
youth-centered civil society organizations (especially those working in the
youth employment sector) to work with during the program design and/or
implementation.
1.2. Establish a clear vision for meaningful youth engagement in the youth
employment program, including in project teams. Make sure it aligns with the
organizational agenda, mandate, processes and programmatic context.
1.3. Identify opportunities for direct youth input into a project document to ensure their
representation.
1.4 Cleary define and communicate the role of a youth representative. Understand
the desirability, extent of engagement and needs of the youth representative.
39
1.6 Establish memoranda of understanding or similar forms of agreements with youth
organizations that were selected based on the mapping.
M2. Human resources and
processes are mobilized to
support the meaningful youth
engagement vision for the
program.
2.1 Develop diversity-responsive, developmentally appropriate, competency-based
functions and job TOR for program youth participants.
2.2 Recruit and/or identify specialists to deliver meaningful youth engagement results.
Ensure that strong, diversity-responsive human resources support is available.
2.3 Appoint a focal point as the go-to resource person who will assess and address
meaningful youth engagement-related issues throughout the program.
M3. Youth-infused program
project documents are
developed.
3.1 Develop a draft business case for meaningful youth engagement, and a fluid
theory of change or a logical framework (LogFrame). An accompanying work
plan, with clearly articulated roles and flexible timelines, will also be needed.
40
3.2 Develop a staffing matrix with clearly articulated roles and responsibilities.
3.3 Develop a preliminary budget that covers identified youth needs and assumes the
(necessarily higher) cost of recalibrating engagement investments throughout the
program life cycle to help vulnerable youth.
41
3.4 Develop operational youth safeguarding policies adapted to the programming
context (e.g., urban/rural, post-conflict, disaster-stricken).
M4. Adult champions are
identied, selected and trained
to work with and coach youth.
4.1 Review and revise the job descriptions of identified adult champions within the
program.
4.2 Assess and address the capacity needs of adult champions to support their
functioning as co-decision-makers with young people in the program.
42
M5. Context-specic, youth-
friendly and inclusive resources,
tools and support are secured
for youth representatives.
5.1. Create a strategy to obtain community and parental buy-in for meaningful youth
engagement, particularly for youth, including those from the most vulnerable
groups. For example, consider incorporating positive masculinity and working
with men in community awareness efforts to address gender-related issues
involved in women’s engagement.
5.2. Diversify, increase and adapt youth-friendly and inclusive safe spaces, work
styles and online/offline communication methods.
5.3. Identify and develop resources that acknowledge and respond to their specific
concerns (e.g., gender- and disability-related, youth concerns and challenges).
5.4. Prepare to offer gender- and disability-responsive peer-mentorship arrangements
for program youth participants and representatives, especially for building of self-
confidence and soft skills (such as problem solving and personal resilience).
43
44
22
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Benets of Working with Youth Organizations in the Planning Phase
Getting diverse youth voices and perspectives as early as the planning phase can offer an array of benefits,
including:
— enabling youth employment program funders to understand the big changes that a program should be contributing
to and what programmatic success will look like from the youths’ point of view;
44
— filling in gaps in youth responsiveness at the onset of the program;
— helping prevent “capture” effects, in which spaces are dominated by more influential or more affiliated youth
groups and constituencies;
— allowing youth to become familiar with donor thinking and to start working early on in the youth employment
program life cycle, thus getting a head start on building a trust-based, shared-value relationship with funders; and
— giving youth a chance to ensure that their concerns and interests are reflected farther along the youth employment
program life cycle.
The approach of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to designing safeguarding
mechanisms for youth participants at the Nairobi Summit on ICPD25 (International Conference on
Population and Development), provides a useful guide for creating an inclusive, respectful and safe
environment for all participants, acknowledging that adolescents and youth in attendance might
be in a particularly vulnerable position and hence need additional measures for their safety and
wellbeing. The safeguarding mechanisms were designed and implemented with the input of young
people. who were engaged through the Youth Engagement Reference Group — a platform bringing
together all the UNFPA regional youth focal points and youth-led and youth-/serving organizations.
All participants of the Summit received a system-generated message with Safeguarding Guidelines
for Youth Participants, which clearly explained expectations from all sides and how incidents may
be reported. Guidelines contained tips on how to network safely and respectfully, with particular
emphasis on cultural differences and digital communication.
A team of 25 dedicated youth “safety monitors” were trained to serve as referral points for youth
who wanted to raise complaints. During the training, particular emphasis was put on the situation
of the most disadvantaged youth groups, such as adolescent girls, persons with disabilities and
LGBTIAQ+ youth; and throughout the event, youth safety monitors were easily identifiable and
evenly distributed across the summit venue.
CASE STUDY NO. 5:
Youth-
Participatory
Safeguarding
Strategy:
UNFPA’s
Approach to
the ICPD25
Summit
A Meaningful Youth Engagement-Responsive Youth Employment Program Budget
and Why Funders Need One
When embedding meaningful youth engagement into a youth employment program budget, the budget should be
flexible and integrate all anticipated expenses throughout the project life cycle. This will reduce the likelihood of
having to troubleshoot and address meaningful youth engagement-related issues farther along the youth employment
program life cycle. For example, it should factor in youth staff salaries, allowances or compensations and any
(additional) costs resulting from working with diverse and from working with diverse youth groups, including the
most vulnerable. Currently, the short- and long-term financial impacts of COVID-19 on youth staff should also be
considered in the budget.
23
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Governance Phase
The governance phase establishes mechanisms for joint adult-youth governance and decision-making, and
equips adults and youth with adequate resources, systems and procurement process. This is important for
supporting the funders’ commitment to youth-engaged, bottom-up processes.
The following specific action steps are recommended for the governance phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. An adult-youth joint
program governance
board is established,
with appropriate
procurement policies
in place.
1.1 Determine a reasonable proportion of seats that young people should occupy. Consider
their heterogeneity and program setting, as well as the power dynamics and social norms
that can exclude vulnerable youth groups.
45
1.2 Procure contracts that facilitate youth recruitment.
1.3 Co-develop a board agenda based on the latest youth employment program theory of
change and youth- and community-accountability mechanisms that will record and track all
future decisions taken.
46
1.4 Set up formal youth engagement-coaching arrangements between youth and adult board
members. Consider diversity-related needs such as those based on gender, disability and
age.
47
1.5 As a board, identify, agree on and develop youth-accessible, knowledge-management
systems.
48
M2. Young board
members are recruited
using diversity-
responsive methods,
so they can serve as
youth program leaders.
2.1. Ensure that job descriptions for youth board members incorporate gender- and disability-
responsive language that clearly articulates expectations. Allocate sufficient resources for
these roles.
49
2.2. Employ diverse recruitment practices, such as online and offline, gender-responsive and
youth-friendly channels; allow candidates to come to the interview with a supportive friend;
and recruit through peer networks, by word of mouth, etc.
2.3. Appraise candidates based on anticipated project skill needs, especially where complex
and expert skill sets are required.
M3. Context-specic,
youth-friendly and
inclusive resources,
tools and support are
secured for the work
of the youth program
board members.
3.1. Secure a safe and conducive environment for youth program board members. Where
necessary, get the buy-in of parents and communities before engaging youth on the board.
3.2. Agree on accessible, youth-friendly, age-appropriate and gender- and disability-responsive
safe spaces and means of transport; work styles (“office” hours, language used, etc.); and
communication methods (phone calls, emails, newsletters, Skype, FaceTime, WhatsApp,
Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoToWebinar, etc.).
50
M4. Youth board
members’ relevant
competencies are
strengthened.
4.1. Assess technical and managerial skill gaps and areas in need of capacity building among
youth board members.
4.2. Draft gender-sensitive, age-appropriate and diversity-responsive, capacity-building plans
for young board members.
51
4.3. Develop or adapt relevant existing gender-responsive, youth-friendly handbooks and
curricula based on the program funders’ and implementers’ training materials.
52
Plan International USA created a dedicated seat on the Board of Directors for a young person in 2015 but
began the process of ensuring that the young person was positioned for success in 2010. A key action
to realizing the full benefits of having a young person as a member was the need to focus programming
not on the incoming youth member but with the adult board members to get them ready. This included
training the board on how to effectively engage youth in dialogue, and be mindful of “adultism” – prejudices
and biases adults carry that almost reflexively cause them to dismiss the ideas and thoughts of young
people. Youth don’t just show up at an adult-led organization and fit in. Plan has invested in the systems,
policies and training to facilitate this, including building a pipeline of youth engaged with Plan at different
levels. There is a ladder of engagement with substantive, increasing responsibility, and opportunities to
lead. These range from advocacy initiatives, a Youth Advisory Board, a summer leadership academy and
dedicated positions on the full board.
CASE STUDY
NO. 6:
Youth on
the Board
24
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Design Phase
Young people feel greater ownership of initiatives that they have played an active role in shaping.
Involvement in refining the program design, in particular, will present a major opportunity for youth to
inform the predetermined youth employment program trajectory set by funders, implementers and youth
organizations in the early preparatory stages.
5354
The following specific action steps are recommended for the design phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. Youth team members
are recruited.
1.1. Use innovative outreach strategies to reach wider groups of young people in broad
demographic areas that will result in a deep recruitment pool (e.g., radio, social media,
grassroots networks, traditional and nontraditional educational institutions).
1.2. Co-develop the functions and job descriptions for prospective youth team members
with engaged youth.
1.3 Provide recruited youth team members with an on-boarding orientation to acknowledge
and respond to their specific (e.g., gender- and disability-related) concerns and
challenges.
M2. Youth employment
program theory of change
is updated and rened
through youth-participatory
research.
55
2.1. Identify the participatory research needs of all youth staff.
2.2. Prepare and submit research terms of reference (TOR) to the youth-adult program
board for validation.
56
2.3. Conduct youth-participatory research and labor market assessments with potential
support from the funder and implementer organizations, especially in challenging
program settings (e.g., post-conflict, disaster-stricken or remote).
2.4. Conduct a power mapping of the WoW with respect to youth groups and employment
issues that are the focus of the program.
57
2.5. Use youth-friendly, evidence-gathering tools (e.g., photography, storytelling), in
addition to traditional research methods.
2.6. Finalize the youth employment program theory of change and strategic goals based on
research and youths’ inputs. Develop baseline targets and collect relevant data.
2.7. Submit the final version of the theory of change to the joint adult-youth program board
for validation.
M3. Subsequent youth
employment program-
related project documents
are nalized and approved.
3.1. Encourage youth teams to review and propose adjustments to the youth employment
program’s overall work plan, staff TOR and budget. They could factor in their own
capacity needs, new interventions and capacity-building requirements.
58
3.2. Let the program board subsequently approve all the final versions of the project
documents (work plan, TOR, capacity-building plans, budget, etc.)
3.3. Allocate appropriate resources (including budget) to support youth-participatory
activities.
M4. The program-relevant
skills of the youth program
teams are enhanced.
4.1. Provide resources to project youth teams with ample resources to consolidate
technical and managerial skills that are relevant to the youth employment program.
5960
Co-learning and co-leading are exemplified in the Youth Advisory Council/Board/Group model, which has been
shown to foster intergenerational partnerships and give young people a seat at the decision-making table at the local
and institutional levels.
53
During the research, 40% of key informants confirmed the high relevance and transferability
of youth advisory councils to programmatic governance settings, with features and good practices of the youth
advisory councils being adapted to project decision-making mechanisms, such as youth program advisory or
executive boards.
54
25
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Implementation Phase
The implementation phase offers young people the opportunity to connect with each other and see their
initial ideas on program design turned into action on the ground. A promoted practice, especially with young
women and youth with disabilities, is for programs to engage youth leaders, peer trainers and mentors who
have the same background or status as their youth constituencies.
61
The following specific action steps are recommended for the implementation phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. Core
engagement-
enabling
resources are
continuously
leveraged.
1.1 Enforce youth safeguarding and other do-no-harm policies and protocols. Pay attention to high-
risk situations and how they may affect young people differently (e.g., young women, youth with
disabilities, LGBTQIA+).
1.2 Continue providing youth engagement core enabling tools and practices, such as safe spaces,
youth-friendly communication and working methods, and payments or compensation for the
youth representatives.
1.3 Sustain regular and consistent youth engagement mentoring, skill development and coaching for
youth representatives.
M2. Youth-
participatory
piloting and
delivery
of a youth
employment
program are
initiated.
2.1. Ensure that resources are provided to support outreach by the youth representatives to the
program’s target youth groups (including future youth beneficiaries and recipients). This will help
speed up the program’s outreach to youth.
62
2.2. Ensure the alignment of implemented youth-participatory program activities with the final youth
employment program theory of change and agreed-on work plan(s).
2.3. Support youth members in their monitoring of grant disbursements and co-management of the
overall youth employment program budget.
Diversifying recruitment practices can address complexities linked to youth heterogeneity. A variety of hiring
approaches help ensure fair youth representation in management and program structures. The recruitment of youth
through various channels can particularly mitigate the risk of capture of youth engagement processes by dominant
youth groups (e.g., the more connected, better educated).
59
Similarly, when hiring for youth employment programs,
not just social media, radio stations and organizational websites, but also communities and schools should be
leveraged for the purpose of reaching out to young people beyond closed or urban networks.
60
In Guatemala, ChispaRural.gt, a dedicated digital service supported by the FAO, is
enabling a new generation of farmers to easily access and share information that
will boost their production, marketing and networking activities. The service was
co-designed with more than 150 youth and local technicians. Engaging rural youth
during the design phase ensured that the digital solution was accessible, responsive
and flexible. To ensure the sustainability of ChispaRural.gt, FAO will continue to work
with rural youth in Guatemala to strengthen their digital skills and multimedia content-
development capacity in order for youth to continue to drive the adaptation and
usability of the tool.
CASE STUDY NO. 7:
The ChispaRural.gt
Youth-Participatory
Digital Solution for
Young Agripreneurs in
Guatemala
26
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
M3. Youth-
participatory
advocacy is
encouraged
locally, and young
voices on youth-
employment
issues are raised
to national,
regional and
global levels.
3.1. Support youth-participatory advocacy activities concerning youth employment issues related to
the program.
3.2. Encourage the program governance board to promote the integration of youth-participatory
program initiatives into formal programs of WoW institutions (e.g., public TVET institutions,
national social protection systems and formal business organizations, depending on the nature
of the activities).
3.3. Adopt and implement with youth an influencing strategy to promote meaningful youth
engagement and the youth employment program at relevant local and international policy and
advocacy forums.
63
This could open up further, longer-term engagement opportunities for youth
representatives, both in the youth employment program and in the wider WoW.
Youth Excel addresses the imperative of the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to involve young people in solving development challenges using
data-driven and research-based approaches. The program supports young leaders and
youth-participatory and youth serving organizations around the globe in their conduct of
quality implementation research; use of data and learnings to improve their own cross-
sectoral, positive youth development programs; their synthesis of data and learning; and
their engagement in intergenerational dialogue with adult decision-makers, so that youth
and adults can together shape and advance data informed development policies, agendas
and programs. Youth Excel therefore confronts barriers that youth face in leading and
implementing development interventions, including the lack of a broadly credible research
and evidence base for youth programming, as well as other barriers that prevent youth from
influencing decisions about programs, policy and funding in their societies.
CASE STUDY NO. 8:
Youth Excel: Young
People Leading
Implementation
Research and
Youth Development
Programs
27
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Monitoring Phase
The monitoring phase features feedback loops that provide young people with the critical opportunity to
constructively inform (through testing and iterating) the funders’ project strategy. At this stage, specifically,
the focus should be on promoting youth-participatory program monitoring.
The following specific action steps are recommended for the monitoring phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. The continued
relevance and
effectiveness of core
engagement-enabling
resources and the youth
members capacities are
monitored.
1.1 Check whether engagement-enabling resources and practices are still continuously
being provided.
1.2 Address and capture unforeseen and new youth support requirements to maintain a safe
and conducive program environment, with particular attention to the situation of young
women, youth with disabilities and other potentially vulnerable groups.
1.3 Ensure the provision of resources to address youth-capacity-development issues and
unexpected skills-training needs with regard to monitoring processes.
M2. Youth-participatory
adaptive programming is
put into practice.
2.1. Encourage youth members to monitor and document the project activities they lead or
are involved in.
64
Encourage them to share their thoughts on the program’s development
with the knowledge management system.
65
This is a process that young people strongly
advocated for in key informant interviews and youth focus group discussions.
2.2. Work with youth members to decide on the needed pivots and to develop action plans
for the required program iterations.
66
Actions plans can be submitted to the program
board for validation. This is a great way to foster co-leadership between the youth and
adults in the program.
2.3. Ensure that action plans developed at the monitoring stage inform any reviews of grant
allocations and consider any general budget implications of the proposed intervention
changes.
M3. Youth employment
program improvements
that may be linked to
youth monitoring efforts
are documented.
3.1. Link visible improvements in the project quality/trajectory or in the youth responsiveness
of the youth employment program to updated action plans. Make sure the improvements
are recorded and amplified.
Search Tanzania created a pilot youth-participatory research project to identify the
drivers that caused children to drop out of school and start working in local gold mines,
thus seriously affecting their ability to secure decent work in the future. Children in the
mines were not willing to speak with adults, but young people from local secondary
schools managed to approach the children as peers and conduct interviews. Through
this process, youth researchers were able to determine that children were leaving school
primarily because of specific economic constraints. Youth researchers then presented
their findings through community meetings, radio broadcasts and newspaper articles.
They encouraged community adults to explore the issue in greater depth and take action
to facilitate children’s reintegration into the education and training system. Thanks to youth
researchers’ efforts, seven children were able to leave the mines and go back to school,
preserving their prospects for quality jobs in the future.
CASE STUDY NO. 9:
Search Tanzania –
Youth-Participatory
Action Research
to Fight Child
Labor and
Support Access
to Education and
Training
28
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Evaluation Phase
Youth-participatory evaluation provides depth and context to youth employment program results.
The following specific action steps are recommended for the evaluation phase:
MILESTONE (M) ACTION STEPS
M1. A youth-participatory youth
employment program evaluation
is prepared and launched.
1.1 Allow sufficient time for the young staff at the youth employment program to
provide inputs for the evaluation TOR.
67
1.2 Involve youth board members and youth organizations in formally selecting youth
evaluator candidates. Provide youth evaluators with additional coordination or
training support.
68
M2. Youth-participatory
dissemination of lessons
learned is supported and
success stories are recognized,
showcased and celebrated.
2.1. Support youth-participatory dissemination activities.
69
2.2. Recognize and celebrate the roles youth members played in program successes
and pay-offs.
70
2.3. Showcase individual accounts of success through the funder and adult ally
networks.
71
M3. The meaningful youth
engagement experience of
the youth employment funder/
implementer is assessed.
3.1. Have the meaningful youth engagement focal point and the funder/implementer
measure results using the program-tailored meaningful youth engagement matrix,
which was developed in the planning phase.
M4. Preparations for the
institutionalization of
meaningful youth engagement
and the scale-up in youth
employment programs are
completed.
4.1. Hold discussions on ways to institutionalize lessons learned regarding meaningful
youth engagement within the funder/implementer organization.
72
4.2. Support the establishment of an active, catalytic and inclusive program for
meaningful youth engagement alumni,
73
who could act as meaningful youth
engagement “ambassadors.”
74
4.3. To support the alumni’s work following the end of the youth employment program,
allocate sustained resources for the medium to long term (e.g., 12 months).
4.4. Prepare necessary documents, including evidence, to support meaningful youth
engagement in the next program cycle.
75
The Goals and Objectives of a Successful Youth-Participatory Evaluation of Youth
Employment Programs
A youth-commissioned program evaluation should: (i) be independent; (ii) have accurate expectations with regard
to the work commissioned; (iii) be based on a program theory of change that has been co-developed with youth
during the earlier phases of the program (in which the youth decided what mattered to them in terms of the changes
to be measured); (iv) reflect a clear intention to understand the broader impact of the youth employment program
across various indicators, thus leaving a large share of the analysis to qualitative evaluative tools, which are usually
more accessible to youth, more bottom-up and which tend to be preferred by young people because they feel that
this is where and how they can offer maximum added value in terms of knowledge creation; and (v) make an effort to
follow up with youth program beneficiaries on how they are using the resources and skills gained from the program,
what their future needs might be, and on what feedback they can offer regarding donor strategies for subsequent
programs.
75
29
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mainstreaming Meaningful Youth Engagement into
Organizational Strategies
This section maps out the basic milestones to help funders secure support for embedding meaningful youth
engagement into institutional systems and strategies for youth employment. It consolidates the insights and
advice provided by decision-makers, practitioners and researchers on the necessary choices, strategies and
behaviors to support youth rights and enable youth to have their voices consistently heard on the decision-
making level. The recommendations are divided into: (i) the starting/early stage and (ii) the intermediate and
advanced stages of an institution’s journey to meaningful youth engagement.
For funders at the start of the institutional youth engagement journey:
Change the discourse and language about youth, especially those in high-risk situations.
Funders and other stakeholders can avoid perpetuating negative and harmful perceptions of young people
by minding how they refer to youth in their programs. Stigmatization might arise from the use of negative
discourse and attitudes regarding young people, such as referring to youth as “problems to be fixed.” This
is particularly important to youth in high-risk situations or environments (e.g., young ex-combatants,
adolescent girls, youth with disabilities) who may otherwise be perceived as dangerous or dependent.
All youth key interviews and focus groups, and nearly all interviews with implementers (90%)
and funders (80%) highlighted the importance of positive relationships when dealing with major
(labor) market players, whose help is needed to promote youth engagement in youth employment
programs (e.g., with established financial institutions). Some funders (20%), implementers
(20%) and youth (25% of youth focus groups, 30% youth key informant interviews) noted adult
stakeholders’ reluctance to work with youth. They highlighted the impact of perceived difficulties in
intergenerational relationships, unless there was a purposeful strategy by donor organizations to de-
risk this segment of the financial market – both through donors’ discourse and actions. Respondents
also recommended that the approaches used to tackle this challenge should be intentional and
proactive, with the aim of unlocking dialogue and opening up avenues to partnerships for those
youth who are the most likely to be excluded from engagement opportunities in youth employment
programs (such as young women).
1
“Restless Experts” was started in Zambia by Restless Development, and is currently being
expanded. Essentially, the platform encourages alumni who have gone on to develop
advanced technical skills and careers to bring those skills back to Restless Development
through consultancy projects. The platform therefore recognizes young people’s expertise
holistically, harnesses it and provides ways to keep tapping into it well beyond the lifetime of
an individual intervention. In another example, under Restless Development’s “Youth Think
Tank” program, in cooperation with the Mastercard Foundation, young researchers “graduate”
by providing training in professional and job-seeking skills to other young people. An Alumni
Governance Board further supports the delivery of the program to current youth cohorts
by helping Restless Development reconsider how the Think Tank initiative could be better
designed to meet young researchers’ needs and personal development goals.
CASE STUDY NO. 10:
Restless
Development’s
Approach
to Working
With Program
Alumni
30
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Identify and work with meaningful youth engagement champions within the organization.
As pointed out by young people and funders during the research for this roadmap, the funders’
openness and readiness to allow meaningful youth engagement with their inner operations will
be critical for kick-starting these organizations’ youth engagement journeys. Institutions need
to hold honest dialogues about how comfortable they are with the idea of intergenerational
cooperation in youth engagement processes and strategies.
76
The key to making it all work
lies in the leadership of genuinely committed and influential youth engagement champions
within these organizations (ideally senior managers).
77
Champions can help cultivate their
organizations’ receptiveness to new internal participation mechanisms by disseminating
information, including examples of successful youth partnerships based on their own first-
hand experience.
78
Meaningful youth engagement within organizations will mean shifting away from existing working
norms and practices, which tend to patronize young people and ignore tokenistic behaviors.
79
Responding in a constructive way will require the emergence of a clear, consensus-driven and
collectively owned vision for meaningful youth engagement at the institutional level.
80
Several
key informant interviews and youth focus group discussions recommended that this vision be
shared by all staff members (adults and youth), and that it build on youth-adult partnerships,
participation and empowerment. Once in place, meaningful youth engagement organizational
principles or guidelines that explicitly formulate this vision, and that recognize young people’s
agency and contributions to youth employment processes and strategies, can be produced.
Partner with funder and implementer organizations that are experienced in meaningful
youth engagement.
In order to measure the effectiveness, results and value of meaningfully engaging youth in youth
employment programs, a recommendation from funders is to partner with and learn from other
organizations that already practice meaningful youth engagement through their own employment
programs. Lessons learned from these partnerships may also serve as an opportunity for funders to
assess the challenges, as well as the best practices, of their partner organizations in implementing
meaningful youth engagement.
Depending on the comfort level of the partner organization, important information for starting up
meaningful youth engagement — such as funding models, institutional designs that accommodate
youth, and other preparatory steps that enable the smooth institutionalization of meaningful
youth engagement — will be very valuable resources that can help the funder prepare for its own
meaningful youth engagement initiative. Further, the partner may provide step-by-step guidance
and support to the funder when initiating meaningful youth engagement.
Start internal meaningful youth engagement advocacy at the top.
Calvert, Zeldin and Weisenbach (2002) highlight the importance of embedding meaningful youth
engagement into organizations’ institutional approaches, and of involving youth representatives in
internal decision-making procedures at the senior executive level. Such mechanisms will allow for
maximum youth participation in the funder/implementer organizational structures and processes,
where critical decisions are made (e.g., regarding strategic funding priorities and programming
orientations) — typically without youth presence.
81
2
3
4
31
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Many youth employment funders and implementers felt that youth participation should be deeply
ingrained in their organizations, and experienced by the leaders at the highest possible level —
well before youth engagement programs are conceived.
82
They noted that successful meaningful
youth engagement institutional processes and journeys naturally involve an intrinsic, ongoing
and permanent relationship between the adult funder/implementer decision-makers and relevant
young people, and that this relationship should be situated well beyond the limits of a youth
employment program life cycle or of a one-off youth employment intervention.
Identify supportive institutional funding processes/mechanisms.
The availability of resources enables funders’ efforts to promote meaningful youth engagement
internally and to embed youthful voices into their institutions. Therefore, considering the higher
costs of including marginalized youth, funders should prepare to redirect institutional investments
toward mainstreaming youth voices throughout their organizations and toward reaching youth
diversity and inclusion milestones. This process will require organizations to internalize the
concept of meaningful youth engagement and to be clear about the mechanisms through which
they will fund their actions in support of internal change that will help achieve meaningful youth
engagement.
Funders should also agree that meaningful youth engagement must be given high priority on their
institutional or strategic agendas. This means they need to understand how meaningful youth
engagement will serve and support not only their own operational models, but the wider economy,
as well. This “business case” may vary, however, depending on the organization.
83
5
The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs offers a telling example of how institutionalizing youth engagement at the
highest level helps youth employment funders infuse meaningful youth engagement into standard strategic and
policy practice. The Ministry is currently setting up a Youth Advisory Committee that will include young people from
the Netherlands and from various geographic regions of focus, who will closely advise on the formulation of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ youth economic empowerment program priorities, reflected in the government’s “Youth at
Heart” strategy.
84
With their combined expertise being articulated at the senior executive level of the Ministry, young
people have successfully influenced the development of a key national policy document regarding the Netherlands’
commitment and strategic approaches to youth employment, education and participation across the world.
While some youth employment organizations might be able to integrate and finance meaningful youth engagement
as part of their core business models, solutions to the challenge of funding the institutionalization of meaningful youth
engagement varied greatly among the respondents from key youth employment organizations (and they might still
evolve as COVID-19 keeps reshaping the ways of working collectively). Some responses were rather aspirational in
nature, with suggestions ranging from brokering public-private, shared-value partnerships (including governments
sharing financial risks with other stakeholders) to leveraging innovation/challenge funds and other agile funding
mechanisms.
32
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
For funders at the intermediate and advanced stages of the
institutional youth engagement journey:
84
Invest in organizational capacity development and meaningful youth
engagement-enabling structures, systems and policies.
In “internalizing change,” staff members need to become familiar with the practice
of meaningful youth engagement in institutions.
85
This will help to sustain the efforts
focused on organizational structures, systems and policies, and to implement
meaningful youth engagement-responsive changes where necessary. To build staff
capacity, funders may need to develop a meaningful youth engagement awareness-
raising and practice curriculum that supports institutional mainstreaming (i.e., with
measures of institutional-level outcomes, including key performance indicators).
When developing the curriculum, funders can focus on youth-participatory,
practitioner-friendly capacity-building tools. The content should include
information on how to operationalize meaningful youth engagement within
institutional youth employment strategies, processes and structures, including
where to start, what to look out for and how to effect incremental change toward
meaningful youth engagement.
86
The curriculum and tools can be delivered through
peer organization learning (among organizations situated at different stages of
their institutional youth engagement journeys), online webinars and forums, technical assistance
and training and employee volunteering or secondment schemes.
Institutional meaningful youth engagement transformation outcomes driven by strong organizational
capacity may include revised internal policies and operational practices, such as youth-participatory
and youth-centered institutional safeguarding guidelines and protocols; more flexible, diversity-
responsive human resources capability and rules, allowing for the smooth procurement and
contracting of youth services and youth project staff; and less stringent, more meaningful youth
engagement-responsive organizational performance management processes that enable youth to
provide quality control and oversight for youth employment institutional strategies.
87
Partner with youth organizations, especially those representing vulnerable and marginalized
youth.
Funders at the more advanced stages of their journeys typically find that youth-adult partnerships
facilitate the process of transformation to meaningful youth engagement. In particular, through
youth organizations, a more diverse, representative pool of youthful talent can be recruited
to participate in strategic decisions regarding an institution’s structure, funding, policies and
programming priorities. Youth organizations could therefore effectively complement the work of
youth who belong to institutional executive boards.
For this to happen, flexible, long-term partnership arrangements are necessary, backed by reliable
resources that can support diverse, context-relevant youth-participatory groups — including
informal youth groups with an active grassroots presence. Indeed, when youth organizations
operate in granular ways, cannot be found, lack a formal structure, or do not represent the full
diversity of the funder/implementer’s youth institutional constituency or program target, it is
1
“I gave my honest opinion and
feedback on how the process
went, so they invited me back
to kind of cocreate the whole
process. … Nowadays, all
projects are aimed toward
the future, toward being
sustainable. … These are not
projects for a year or two;
[instead], they evolve, and one
project grows into another one.
That is also how relationships
[with adult funders and
implementers] evolve from
one project to another.”
YOUNG WOMAN, EASTERN
EUROPE
2
33
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
important to consider reaching out to these potential youth partners in innovative ways, such as
through informal structures.
Agreements with youth organizations can ensure a quick, targeted and regular mobilization of
youth partners to inform meaningful youth engagement, institutional choices and organizational
processes. Agreements should also be explicit about youth participation rights and remain mindful
of the power dynamics across the partnership structure created by the funder/implementer with
specific youth organization(s). This is especially true if the partnerships involve associations for
traditionally marginalized youth, such young women’s groups or youth disability-support networks.
Restless Development (2017) and Women Deliver (2016) find that, while seeking to partner with
youth groups at the institutional level, it is critical for the youth employment funder/implementer
to invest in strengthening the capacity of all young people as equal collaborators in the
organizational processes and practices under revision.
88
This means that the youth employment
funder/implementer organizations should produce their own youth-friendly, developmentally
appropriate, gender- and disability-responsive handbooks, briefs, toolkits and case studies about
the organization’s internal strategies, guidelines, policies and structures; its youth employment-
specific areas of technical and advocacy expertise; and/or its youth employment project
management procedures.
Research and continuously adapt to the meaningful youth engagement journey.
Continuous foundational research based on what Zeldin, Christens and Powers (2013) call
“observation and categorization” is needed to further refine the parameters and value of good
practices in organizational youth engagement — particularly to see what works and does not work in
engaging youth with funders’ and implementers’ structures, processes, strategic funding priorities
and programming orientations.
89
Based on the knowledge gaps identified by the literature review and discussions with funders,
implementers and youth, additional research areas that youth employment funders/implementers
could benefit from include:
— how organizations can smoothly and effectively change their funding models to embed
meaningful youth engagement;
— best practices for flexible recruitment and contracting to facilitate the direct hiring of youth or
procurement of youth services;
— comparative studies on overarching youth governance structures used across funder and
implementer institutions to better understand strategic issues regarding youth employment,
Funder and youth participants alike consider it best to avoid exploitative or transactional relationships in which young
people are used as a means of assisting or implementing the donors’ own projects. Similarly, WHO (2018) finds
that, at the foundation of youth-donor partnerships, there should be a true desire on the part of donors to build a
sustainable relationship and alliance with the same young people through long-term engagement.
3
34
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
as well as research into practical methods for making such structures sound, considering youth
identity heterogeneity and intersectionality;
— strengthening the evidence base of the impact of private sector investment into meaningful
youth engagement;
— research on the categories of young people who are not participating in youth employment
institutions (e.g., the most marginalized, such as youth with certain types of disabilities); and
— mapping possible variations of the meaningful youth engagement institutional journey
within funder and implementer organizations, based on the differences among relevant youth
groups and the communities where they live (e.g., ways to integrate both formal and informal
organizational engagement pathways for the most vulnerable youth).
90
35
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Conclusion
M
eaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
has evidently emerged as a critical issue for funders to
prioritize. Deepening the conceptual and practical
understanding of how youth voices can be better embedded into
youth employment programs, particularly, has taken the journey from
scholarly works to practical applications.
While requiring further research, from the body of knowledge that exists, this roadmap does find that
when youth’s inputs are taken into consideration in a cocreation process, and when young people are
treated as shared value partners, returns on investment can be expected – ranging from program-related
benefits to ripple effects on the young people themselves. Existing literature and discussions with funders,
implementers and young people carried out for this research also confirm the increasing recognition of
young people’s engagement as valuable in its own right.
The roadmap argues that meaningful youth engagement requires proactive measures from start to end to
foster shared-value intergenerational partnerships among youth and adults. This includes understanding
the complexities of young people’s inherent heterogeneity and how practical constraints can easily
determine the extent of their participation. Additionally, being conscious of and correcting prevailing
biases, norms and entrenched barriers that impede young people from being seen as shared-value partners
go a long way toward strengthening funders’ commitment to working with youth.
Nevertheless, while meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs continues to gain more
attention, much more work is urgently required in terms of research, execution, replication and scaling.
The untapped potential that meaningful youth engagement offers to youth employment programs is not
yet fully known. What is clear is that programs that do not include it can no longer be considered holistic
or complete. Our collective endeavors can only be successful when meaningful youth engagement is truly
embraced and is clearly evident in youth employment interventions in the form of intergenerational
partnerships that not only benefit young people, but also adults, communities, societies and the labor
market.
36
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Bibliography
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Calvert, M., Zeldin, S., & Weisenbach, A. (2002). Youth involvement for community, organizational and youth development: directions for research, evalu-
ations and practice. Chevy Chase, Md: Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development.
Campbell et al. (2009). Youth participation in the fight against AIDS in South Africa: from policy to practice. London: London School of Economics,
Journal of Youth Studies, 12 (1), pp. 93-109.
Decent Jobs for Youth. (2019). Rights and voices of youth: annual conference of decent jobs for youth. Rome: Decent Jobs for Youth.
Department for International Development (DFID). (2010). Youth participation in development: A guide for development agencies and policy makers.
London: DFID-Civil Society Organization (CSO) Working Group.
Development Alternative. (2019). Towards a thriving, credible, and sustainable youth civil society. London: Restless Development.
EvalYouth. (2016). EvalYouth concept note: a global network to promote engagement, innovation, and exchange among young and emerging evaluators and
youth and young people. Kathmandu: EvalPartners.
Gaventa, J. (2002). Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. Brighton: IDS Bulletin, 33 (2), pp. 1-14.
Government of the Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2020). Youth at heart: young people at the heart of Dutch development cooperation. The
Hague: Government of the Netherlands.
Head, B. W. (2011). Why not ask them? mapping and promoting youth participation
. Amsterdam: Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, 33(4),
pp. 541-547.
Heck, K., & Fowler, J. (2008). Social capital in adolescence predicts civic engagement among young adults. Davis, Calif: UC Davis Center for Youth
Development.
Iwasaki, Y. (2016). The role of youth engagement in positive youth development and social justice youth development for high-risk, marginalised youth. Ed-
monton: University of Alberta, Applied Development Science: International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21 (3), pp. 267-278.
Jardine, C. G., & James, A. (2012).Youth researching youth: Benefits, limitations and ethical considerations within a participatory research process. Lon-
don: Informa UK, Ltd., International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71 (1). pp. 1-8.
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights
from three programs. New Jersey: Journal of Community Psychology, 33 (1), pp. 41-55.
Kelleher, C., Seymour, M., and Halpenny, A. M. (2014). Promoting the participation of seldom heard young people: a review of the literature on best practice
principles. Research funded under the Research Development Initiative Scheme of the Irish Research Council in partnership with the Depart-
ment of Children and Youth Affairs. Dublin: Technological University Dublin.
Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Youth-adult research collaborations: bringing youth voice and development to the research pro-
cess.
In Organized Activities As Contexts of Development. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 143-168
Kroll, T., Neri, M. T., & Miller, K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Bethesda, Md: Rehabilitation Nursing, 30 (3),
pp. 106-113.
Lewis-Charp et al. (2003). Extending the reach of youth development through civic activism: outcomes of the youth leadership for development initiative.
Takoma Park, Md: Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development.
Linds, W., Goulet, L., & Sammel, A. (Eds.). (2010). Emancipatory practices: adult/youth engagement for social and environmental justice. Rotterdam/
Boston/Taipei: Sense Publications.
Mahoney, J., Larson, R., & Eccles, J (Eds.). (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development: extracurricular activities, after-school and community
programs. New York: Psychology Press.
Mastercard Foundation. (2014). 2013-2014 Youth Think Tank report: engaging young people. Toronto: The Mastercard Foundation.
National Commission on Resources for Youth. (1975). Youth participation: a concept paper. Washington, D.C.: A report of the National Commission
on Resources for Youth to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Youth Development.
37
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
National League of Cities. (2010). Authentic youth civic engagement: a guide for municipal leaders. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities.
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. London: British Medical Journal, p. 341.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). Youth engagement and empowerment in Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia.
Paris: OECD.
– – –. (2018). Youth stocktaking report. Paris: OECD
Ose, Y. (2019). Report on the Assessment on the Youth Inspiring Youth in Agriculture Initiative in Uganda. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) of the United Nations. Unpublished.
Palinkas, L. A. et al. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Bethesda, Md.: Administration and Policy in mental health and mental
health services research. 38 (1), pp. 44-53.
Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth engagement toolkit. Summerside, P.E., Canada: Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium
for School Health.
Pellegrino, J. W. & Hilton, M.L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Petković J, et al. (2019). Youth and forecasting of sustainable development pillars: An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system approach. Belgrade: Universi-
ty of Belgrade.
Plan International. (2019). Pathways to partnering with youth-led groups and organisations. Woking, United Kingdom (U.K.): Plan International.
Powers, J. L., & Tiffany, J. S. (2006). Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. Bethesda, Md.: Journal of Public Health Management
and Practice, 12 (6) - Supplement, pp. S79-S87.
Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation in the solutions for youth employment coalition. London: Solutions for Youth Employ-
ment (S4YE).
– – –. (2019). Youth leadership, participation and accountability 2.0: Parts 1, 2, and 3. Sunninghill, South Africa: United Nations Population Fund (UNF-
PA); and London: Restless Development.
Saito, R. N., & Sullivan, T. K. (2011). The many faces, features and outcomes of youth engagement. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh, Journal of
Youth Development, 6, pp.109–125.
Sammon, E. M., Jagmag, M., Martinez, M., & Wahyudi, R. (2017). How do you know what’s good for me? An overview of promising practices in adolescent
programming in Indonesia by UNICEF (and other partners). Final Report. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Policy Management.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Triangles and crystals: on the geometry of qualitative research. Bethesda, Md.: Research in Nursing & Health, 18 (6), pp. 569-
574.
Schulman, S. (2006). Terms of engagement: aligning youth, adults, and organizations toward social change. Bethesda, Md.: Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice, 12 - Supplement, pp. S26-S31.
Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C, & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: the what, why, when, where, and who of
citizenship development. London, U.K.: Applied Developmental Science, 6 (4), pp. 264-272.
Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective, and sustainable. Hoboken, N.J.: Children & Society, 18 (2), pp. 106-118.
Stibbe, D., Reid, S., and Gilbert, J. (2018). Maximising thei impact of partnerships fot the SDGs. Oxford, U.K.: The Partnering Initiative and the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA).
Sukarieh, M., & Tannock, S. (2008). In the best interests of youth or neoliberalism? The World Bank and the New Global Youth Empowerment project.
London, U.K.: Journal of Youth Studies, 11 (3), pp. 301-312.
Trivelli, C., & Morel J. (2019). Rural youth inclusion, empowerment and participation. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD).
United Nations. (2020). Youth and the SDGs. New York: UN, Retrieved September 2020.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2011). Overview of the nine basic requirements for effective and ethical participation and associated bench-
mark. New York: UNICEF.
– – –. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent and youth engagement. Amman: UNICEF Middle East and North Africa Regional Office.
UNDESA. (2004). Youth participation in decision-making. In World Youth Report 2003: The global situation of young people. New York: United
Nations.
UNFPA. (2020). ICPD25 youth engagement report. Unpublished. Rome: UNFPA.
UNFPA, East and Southern Africa Regional Office, & Restless Development. (2019). Youth leadership, participation and accountability 2.0: parts 1, 2,
and 3. Sunninghill, South Africa: UNFPA, and London: Restless Development.
United Nations Sustainable Development (UNSD). (1992). Agenda 21: United Nations conference on environment & development. Rio de Janeiro:
UNSD.
38
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2009). Youth councils: an effective way to promote youth participation; some initial
findings from Africa. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
University of Michigan, Adolescent Health Initiative. (2014). Creating and sustaining a thriving youth advisory council: a collection of youth experiences
and recommendations compiled by Adolescent Health Initiative. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Health Systems.
Van Reeuwijk, M. & Singh, A. (2018). Meaningful youth participation as a way to achieving success-results from operational research on meaningful youth
participation in a large-scale youth SRHR program in Africa and Asia
. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Journal of Children’s Rights, 5 (1), pp. 200-222.
Women Deliver. (2016). Engage youth: a discussion paper on meaningful youth engagement. New York: Women Deliver.
– – –. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement: sharing power, advancing progress, driving change. New York: Women Deliver.
– – –. (2019b). Nothing about us without us: new initiative to focus on engaging youth around sexual and reproductive health and rights. New York: Women
Deliver.
Work in Progress! Alliance. (2018) Youth-led evaluation guide. The Hague: Oxfam Novib.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
World Health Organization (WHO). (n.d.). Global consensus statement: meaningful adolescent & youth engagement. Geneva: World Health Organiza-
tion.
Youth Employment Funders Group (YEFG). (2018). What works in soft skills development for youth employment? A donor’s perspective. YEFG and
Mastercard Foundation.
Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust. (2019). Decades of struggle and hope: a Zimbabwean youth compendium; 2019 report. Harare, Zimba-
bwe: Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust.
– – –. (2019). Youth practitioner’s handbook. Harare, Zimbabwe: Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust.
YouthPower Learning. (2020). Community of practice (COP): youth engagement. Washington D.C.: USAID, Retrieved March 20, 2020.
– – –. (2019). Youth advisory councils: eight steps to consider before you engage. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
Zeldin, S., Larson, R, Camino, L. & O’Connor, C. (2004). Intergenerational relationships and partnerships in community programs: purpose, practice,
and directions for research. Hoboken, N.J.: American journal of community psychology, 33 (1), pp. 1–10.
Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: bridging generations for youth development and
community change. Hoboken, N.J. American journal of community psychology, 51(3-4), pp. 385-397.
39
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Endnotes
1. The age range in the denition of meaningful youth engagement is informed by the United Nations Youth Strategy and by the maximum age for this paper’s research
youth participants.
2. Women Deliver. (2019b). Nothing about us without us: new initiative to focus on engaging youth around sexual and reproductive health and rights. New York: Women
Deliver.
3. Sukarieh, M., & Tannock, S. (2008). In the best interests of youth or neoliberalism? The World Bank and the New Global Youth Empowerment Project. London, U.K.:
Journal of Youth Studies, 11 (3), pp. 301-312.
4. United Nations Sustainable Development (UNSD). (1992). Agenda 21: United Nations conference on environment & development. Rio de Janeiro: UNSD. 3 to 14 June
1992. Cited In: Petković J, et al. (2019). Youth and forecasting of sustainable development pillars: An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system approach. Belgrade: Univer-
sity of Belgrade.
5. United Nations. (2020). Youth and the SDGs. New York: UN, Retrieved September 2020., from United Nations website: Youth – United Nations sustainable development.
6. A summary of the ndings of the literature review can be found in Annex B.
7. Palinkas, L. A. et al. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research. Bethesda,
Md.: Administration and Policy in mental health and mental health services research. 38 (1), pp. 44-53.
8. Kroll, T., Neri, M. T., & Miller, K. (2005). Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research. Bethesda, Md: Rehabilitation Nursing, 30 (3), pp. 106-113.
9. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, p. 341; Sandelowski, M. (1995).
Triangles and crystals: on the geometry of qualitative research. Bethesda, Md.: Research in Nursing & Health, 18 (6), pp. 569-574.
10. As convenors of youth from diverse backgrounds, specically disadvantaged youth, our work with the Youth Advisory Panel enabled us to reach out to a sample of repre-
sentative youth from all major geographic regions of the world. This ensured that youth voices were amplied in this study
.
11. Intergenerational partnerships built on principles of collaboration, trust and co-decision-making were dened differently by funders, implementers and youth. Youth focus
groups, in particular, consider such intergenerational partnerships to be “equal value partnerships,” compared to funders and implementers who view this as “shared
value partnerships.”
12. In this context, soft skills refer to what the Youth Employment Funders Group (2018) describe as “the broad set of skills, attitudes, behaviors and personal qualities that
enable them to effectively navigate their environment, work with others, perform well and achieve their goals.” Soft skills were perceived by some funders and implement-
ers to help youth transition more smoothly across education and training systems and into the labor market.
13. The focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and survey conducted for this study included youths aged 18 to 30.
14. Saito, R. N., & Sullivan, T. K. (2011). The many faces, features and outcomes of youth engagement; Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh, Journal of Youth Develop-
ment, 6, pp.109–125.
15. Trivelli, C., & Morel J. (2019). Rural youth inclusion, empowerment and participation. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
16. Stibbe, D., Reid, S., and Gilbert, J. (2018). Maximising the impact of partnerships fot the SDGs. Oxford, U.K.: The Partnering Initiative and the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA).
17. Development Alternative. (2019). Towards a thriving, credible, and sustainable youth civil society. London: Restless Development; Trivelli & Morel (2019). Rural youth
inclusion; Iwasaki, Y. (2016). The role of youth engagement in positive youth development and social justice youth development for high-risk, marginalised youth. Edmon-
ton: University of Alberta, Applied Development Science: International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21 (3), pp. 267-278.; Jardine, C. G., & James, A. (2012).Youth
researching youth: Benets, limitations and ethical considerations within a participatory research process. London: Informa UK, Ltd., International Journal of Circum-
polar Health, 71 (1). pp. 1-8.; Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Youth-adult research collaborations: bringing youth voice and development to the
research process. In Organized Activities As Contexts of Development. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 143-168; and Mastercard Foundation. (2014). 2013-2014 youth
think tank report: engaging young people.Toronto: The Mastercard Foundation.
18. Iwasaki (2016). The role of youth engagement; Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth engagement toolkit. Summerside, P.E., Canada:
Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health.; Jardine & James (2012).Youth researching youth; Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Youth-adult
research collaborations; Mastercard Foundation. (2014). 2013-2014 youth think tank report; Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces; YouthPower Learning. (2020). Com-
munity of practice (COP): youth engagement. Washington D.C.: USAID, Retrieved March 20, 2020.; Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement: sharing
power, advancing progress, driving change
. New York: Women Deliver; National League of Cities. (2010). Authentic youth civic engagement: a guide for municipal lead-
ers. Washington, DC.: National League of Cities, quoted in:
Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership:
bridging generations for youth development and community change.
Hoboken, N.J. American journal of community psychology, 51(3-4), pp. 385-397.
19. Development Alternative. (2019). Towards a thriving; Trivelli & Morel (2019). Rural youth inclusion; Iwasaki (2016). The role of youth engagement; Jardinen & James
(2012).Youth researching youth; Kirshner, O’Donoghue, & McLaughlin (2001). Youth-adult research collaborations; Mastercard Foundation. (2014). 2013-2014 youth
think tank report; Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation in the solutions for youth employment coali-
tion. London: Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE); Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement
; National League of Cities. (2010). Authentic youth civic
engagement.
20. Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C, & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development. London, U.K.: Applied Developmental Science, 6 (4),
pp. 264-272, cited in: Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
21. Iwasaki, Y. (2016). The role of youth engagement; Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth engagement toolkit; and Restless Development.
(2017). Strategies for youth participation.
22. Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces.
23. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2018). Toolkit for adolescent and youth engagement. Amman: UNICEF Middle East and North Africa Regional Ofce.
24. Gaventa, J. (2002). Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. Brighton: IDS Bulletin, 33 (2), pp. 1-14.
25. Powers, J. L., & Tiffany, J. S. (2006). Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. Bethesda, Md.: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12 (6)
- Supplement, pp. S79-S87.
26. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and Women Deliver. (2016). Engage youth: a discussion paper on meaningful youth engagement. New
York: Women Deliver.
27. Development Alternative. (2019). Towards a thriving.
28. Powers & Tiffany (2006). Engaging youth.
29. Trivelli & Morel (2019). Rural youth inclusion.
30. Trivelli & Morel (2019). Rural youth inclusion.
31. Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement.
32. Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement; Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces.
33. Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth engagement toolkit.
34. Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces; UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; and Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement.
35. Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces.
36. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
37. This insight came from a key informant interview with a young participant in the roadmap research activities.
38. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement; Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experi-
ments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press., cited in: Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice
39. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent.
40. This will also ensure that any future successful elements of the youth employment programs can be easily absorbed or mainstreamed back into national structures.
41. This is from a key informant interview with a representative from a funder organization.
42. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
43. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
44. Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust. (2019). Decades of struggle and hope: a Zimbabwean youth compendium; 2019 report. Harare, Zimbabwe: Youth Em-
powerment and Transformation Trust.
45. YouthPower Learning. (2020). Community of practice (COP).
46. Plan International. (2019). Pathways to Partnering with Youth-Led Groups and Organisations. Woking, United Kingdom (U.K.): Plan International.; WHO. (n.d.). Global
consensus statement: meaningful adolescent & youth engagement Geneva: World Health Organization; UNFPA, East and Southern Africa Regional Ofce, & Restless
40
A roadmap for promoting meaningful youth engagement in youth employment programs
YOUTH VOICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Development. (2019). Youth leadership, participation and accountability 2.0: parts 1, 2, and 3. Sunninghill, South Africa: United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); and
London: Restless Development.
47. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice; and UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent.
48. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
49. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and WHO. (n.d.). Global consensus statement.
50. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; WHO. (n.d.). global consensus statement.
51. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
52. The youth board members’ training needs can differ from one member to another, and range from youth employment technical issues relevant to the youth employment
program to action research and cooperative inquiry methods, design thinking and adaptive programming, project or nancial management, youth-led evaluation, and
youth-led policymaking (usually a very resource-intensive type of training, requiring considerable levels of expertise).
53. Plan International. (2019). Pathways to partnering. Woking, United Kingdom; United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2009). Youth councils: an
effective way to promote youth participation; some initial ndings from Africa.
Washington, D.C.: USAID; YouthPower Learning. (2019). Youth advisory councils: eight
steps to consider before you engage. Washington, D.C.: USAID; and Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust. (2019). Harare, Zimbabwe: Youth Empowerment
and Transformation Trust.
54. For details about how to form and work with youth advisory councils, see: USAID. (2009). Youth councils; and University of Michigan, Adolescent Health Initiative. (2014).
Creating and sustaining a thriving youth advisory council: a collection of youth experiences and recommendations compiled by Adolescent Health Initiative. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University of Michigan Health Systems., quoted in: YouthPower Learning. (2019). Youth advisory councils .
55. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; and Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
56. Regarding meaningful youth engagement, youth-employment-program literature shows that youths tend to enjoy participatory research because it gives them some level
of control over knowledge production and data-analysis, helping them full their right to active participation.
57. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
58. Even though youth-employment-program youth staff were recruited based on specic skill sets and areas of expertise that matched program needs, it is expected that
considerable competency gaps might be revealed among youth following the conduct of program design research to rene the program’s theory of change. Indeed, as
program requirements become clearer through research, so do the types of skills needed to address them.
59. USAID. (2009). Youth councils; and University of Michigan, Adolescent Health Initiative. (2014). Creating and sustaining a thriving youth advisory council. quoted in:
YouthPower Learning. (2019). Youth advisory councils.
60. USAID. (2009). Youth councils; and YouthPower Learning, YouthPower Learning. (2019). Youth advisory councils.
61. Iwasaki (2016). The role of youth engagement.
62. Youth peer-outreach is recognized by youth employment funders and implementers as the approach most likely to yield positive results in terms of youth enrolment and
retention in programs.
63. “A young person’s social network should expand, not shrink, following a youth-engagement activity.” See: Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018).
Youth engagement toolkit.
64. Youth employment funders and implementers generally agree that, rather than being rushed to complete all program activities, “insider” youths close to program develop-
ments should be encouraged to take a step back and reect on the impact of youth employment programs (e.g., what works well or less well). This can also help increase
young people’s motivation and provide them with an opportunity to plan for the world they want through continuous participation, in turn enhancing their own personal
growth, thanks to constant learning and improvement.
65. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; and Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
66. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; and Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
67. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018).
Youth engagement toolkit.
68. Work in Progress! Alliance. (n.d.) Youth-Led Evaluation Guide. The Hague, Netherlands: Oxfam Novib.
69. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent;Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018).
Youth engagement toolkit.
70. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; and Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018).
Youth engagement toolkit.
71. UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for adolescent; and Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
72. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
73. Mastercard Foundation. (2014). 2013-2014 youth think tank report; Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth Engagement Toolkit; Plan Interna-
tional. (2019). Pathways to partnering; UNICEF. (2018). Toolkit for Adolescent; and Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation.
74. This came from key informant interviews with representatives from funder and implementer organizations.
75. Work in Progress! Alliance. (n.d.) Youth-led evaluation guide. The Hague, Netherlands: Oxfam Novib.
76. Calvert, M., Zeldin, S., & Weisenbach, A. (2002). Youth involvement for community, organizational and youth development: directions for research, evaluations and
practice. Chevy Chase, Md: Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development.; Powers & Tiffany (2006). Engaging youth.
77. Calvert, Zeldin & Weisenbach. (2002). Youth involvement for community; Powers & Tiffany (2006). Engaging youth.
78. Trivelli & Morel (2019). Rural youth inclusion.
79. Pan-Canadian Joint Consortium for School Health. (2018). Youth engagement toolkit.
80. Schulman, S. (2006). Terms of engagement: aligning youth, adults, and organizations toward social change. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12 -
Supplement, pp. S26-S31.
81. Calvert, Zeldin, & Weisenbach. (2002). Youth involvement for community ; Powers & Tiffany (2006). Engaging youth.
82. Plan International. (2019). Pathways to partnering.
83. This came from key informant interviews with representatives from funder and implementer organizations.
84. Government of the Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2020. Youth at heart: young people at the heart of Dutch development cooperation. The Hague, Government
of Netherlands.
85. Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces; and Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement.
86. Saito & Sullivan (2011). The many faces ; and Women Deliver. (2019a). Meaningful youth engagement.
87. Restless Development supports young people’s role as facilitators in conducting analyses of funder, network and implementer organizations’ own structures, in order to
identify the barriers to and opportunities for meaningful engagement with youth, to dene what success in that regard would look like, and to propose recommendations
for youth-engagement strategies.
88. Restless Development. (2017). Strategies for youth participation; Women Deliver. (2016). Engage youth.
89. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
90. Zeldin, Christens & Powers (2013). The psychology and practice.
